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

October 1, 2008

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

The loooong history of Letterboxing is proof enough of that.

Now there's a question. Are there any Letterboxers who find the box but don't stamp their personal logbook?

On to the online log debate, I'm not going to let the whole thing bother me much, after all, it's just a hunt for a plastic box, but here are my two old English pennies:

As has been mentioned before, the rules of geocaching state:

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.

There is good reason for logging your experience online, it lets other cachers know the condition of the cache, when it was last found and gives you the oppurtunity to comment on anything else that is relevant. This is especially useful for the cache owher and people attempting to find the cache after you. People spend their time, money and effort setting and finding caches, it's only polite to let them know the condition of the cache and when it has been found, to save them any unnecessary dissapointment.

An example:

I set out to find a cache one weekend and the previous logs had mentioned that the logbook was too wet to write on, we took a new logbook and good quality ziplock bag to put it in, some paper towels to dry it out and maintained the cache, on emailing the owner to let him know, he thanked me, and said he'd been unable to visit the cache recently as he was out of the country. If people didn't log their experiences online there would still be cachers finding a waterlogged cache full of soggy paper.

I have used online logs to warn cachers of barbed wire in the area of the search. I have used online logs to inform owners of any maintenance they need to do. I have used online logs to advise cachers of other attractions in the area, good places to park, nearby restrooms etc.

Geocaching is a community, the more people put in, the more people will get out of it. Caching obviously puts a smile on your face, put a smile on other cachers faces too. <_<

October 1, 2008

How recently did the rules change? When I first started doing this, I could _swear_ there was no mention of the online component as "required", it was merely a suggestion. The primary goal was, find thing, sign log.

Which I do, whenever possible. And I usually log them as soon as I get home, on GS, both Finds and DNF. I'm _SURE_ there are one or two that have slipped my mind. When you go to 10 or 15 nearly identical green bison tubes in a pine tree in one day, you can get them confused.

In any case, it's not an act of malice. At least not on my part.

38.2k · October 1, 2008

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

The loooong history of Letterboxing is proof enough of that.

The looong history of letterboxing shows that the popularity of geocaching has blown by letterboxing in a

just a few years. I think it can be reasonably argued that instant feedback of online logs and the sense of community and shared experiences that they foster are a big part of this.

I can drive 30 miles and schlep a letterbox 5 miles up the side of a mountain and not know if anyone found it until I drive 30 miles and climb 5 miles again to check it. Even if I do check, I just see a stamp. I don't know if the finder had fun. I won't know about his adventure along the way anything other than he got there and stamped in.

One of my earliest geocaches received a log that said in part "Thanks for this bonding experience with my daughters". That log and the idea that I could have a positive affect on others simply by hiding a box in the woods is what spurred me on to more hides. That's feedback that I would not have received from letterboxing and probably the reason why I've hidden nearly 250 geocaches and 0 letterboxes (though I do hunt letterboxes).

Look at the two sports. Letterboxing requires that you spend $4 to make (or buy) a stamp. Geocaching involves an investment of at least $100 to get started, then people have to learn to use a fairly complicated electronic device. Letterboxing has been around well over 100 years. Geocaching is going on it's 9th year. You'd think that letterboxing would be far more popular than geocaching, but it doesn't come close. I think the difference is online logs.

3.2k · October 1, 2008

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

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.

It did?

I’m sorry, but by your own admission that is an assumption on your part, not mine.

I remembered you weren’t crazy about the existence of bogus logs, but I also remembered (incorrectly?) that, aside from your obsession with a particular word, you and I eventually agreed that our viewpoints on that issue were almost identical.

I wasn’t really thinking of your (our?) viewpoint when I penned the word “evil.” Why, then, if my memory is accurate, did you feel the need to put yourself in that group anyway? If you do not see bogus logging as evil, then why in the world would you make the assumption that I was referring to you, personally, as a member of that group of people?

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.

It does, if only vaguely.

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?

Well, since you’ve offered – yes, please answer all those questions for me, as that would probably be very helpful. Then maybe you and I can at least come to an agreement as to exactly what your position is on this issue, and you can stop telling be how badly you’ve been misconstrued.

Especially if you could please include an answer to the last question you listed there, which is probably the most critical one.

7.2k · October 1, 2008

You'd think that letterboxing would be far more popular than geocaching, but it doesn't come close. I think the difference is online logs.

It's more than the online logs. Actually, I think the online logs are only a tiny part of it. Most geocaches, by far, are easier to find than a typical letterbox. You simply follow the arrow until you get to the area and then search for the container. Letterboxing is more work on the front end of the hunt. Add to this the enticement of a geocache on an online map versus the relative mystery of a letterbox. The reason there are fewer letterboxers is probably the same as the reason there are fewer multis and puzzles sought--it's more work. Placing a box is harder, too. You need a stamp, but not only that, to do it "right" it has to be custom. Then there's the push to mainstream the hobby. The more folks who participate the more revenue. I've not seen nearly the push to mainstream letterboxing as I have geocaching.

Naw, I think online logs is only a tiny reason for the higher interest in geocaching over letterboxing.

3.2k · October 1, 2008

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

The loooong history of Letterboxing is proof enough of that.

Now there's a question. Are there any Letterboxers who find the box but don't stamp their personal logbook?

Great question!

And if they don’t keep track of their letterboxing activity in their personal journals, and if they share those journals with other letterboxers, then aren’t those letterboxers guilty of the very same inconveniencing lie-by-omission we are discussing here?

There is good reason for logging your experience online, it lets other cachers know the condition of the cache, when it was last found and gives you the oppurtunity to comment on anything else that is relevant. This is especially useful for the cache owher and people attempting to find the cache after you. People spend their time, money and effort setting and finding caches, it's only polite to let them know the condition of the cache and when it has been found, to save them any unnecessary dissapointment.

Precisely.

This is a critical component of one of the primary arguments that is used every time people try to convince me that bogus Smiley logs are inherently immoral. The glaring inconsistency in their premise is that fact that few of these folks ever seem to be bothered at all by the found-it-but-didn’t-log-it-online form of bogus logging, which as you (and I, and many others here) have clearly shown, presents the very same – and very real and very annoying – potential problem.

3.2k · October 1, 2008

You'd think that letterboxing would be far more popular than geocaching, but it doesn't come close. I think the difference is online logs.

It's more than the online logs. Actually, I think the online logs are only a tiny part of it. Most geocaches, by far, are easier to find than a typical letterbox. You simply follow the arrow until you get to the area and then search for the container. Letterboxing is more work on the front end of the hunt. Add to this the enticement of a geocache on an online map versus the relative mystery of a letterbox. The reason there are fewer letterboxers is probably the same as the reason there are fewer multis and puzzles sought--it's more work. Placing a box is harder, too. You need a stamp, but not only that, to do it "right" it has to be custom. Then there's the push to mainstream the hobby. The more folks who participate the more revenue. I've not seen nearly the push to mainstream letterboxing as I have geocaching.

Naw, I think online logs is only a tiny reason for the higher interest in geocaching over letterboxing.

That’s a very good analysis, and I have to agree.

Comparing Letterboxing to Geocaching is a bit like comparing a formal Calligraphy Correspondence Club to the world of email.

My only letterbox-related point was to agree with Toz's statement about online logs. I see an online log as being only a peripheral component of caching to which one must apply common sense and patience, not a sacred thing in and of itself which one must revere as if it were the Constitution of the United States.

7.2k · October 1, 2008

Never mind. The post order got out of whack.

Edited October 1, 2008 by CoyoteRed

October 1, 2008

I'm waiting for Vinny's next post in this series: "Should caches containing recipes for children of the Irish poor be banned?"

14.3k · October 1, 2008

There is good reason for logging your experience online, it lets other cachers know the condition of the cache, when it was last found and gives you the oppurtunity to comment on anything else that is relevant. This is especially useful for the cache owher and people attempting to find the cache after you. People spend their time, money and effort setting and finding caches, it's only polite to let them know the condition of the cache and when it has been found, to save them any unnecessary dissapointment.

Precisely. This is a critical component of one of the primary arguments that is used every time people try to convince me that bogus Smiley logs are inherently immoral. The glaring inconsistency in their premise is that fact that few of these folks ever seem to be bothered at all by the found-it-but-didn't-log-it-online form of bogus logging, which as you (and I, and many others here) have clearly shown, presents the very same – and very real and very annoying – potential problem.

More tongue-in-cheek KBI? It's hard to tell. Anyhow, if I am with a group of people and they all log a cache (letting everyone know that the cache is OK) and I don't log it, then how does that support what you just said? I think you are cutting with a dull knife again.

14.3k · October 1, 2008

I'm waiting for Vinny's next post in this series: "Should caches containing recipes for children of the Irish poor be banned?"

3.9k · October 1, 2008

You'd think that letterboxing would be far more popular than geocaching, but it doesn't come close. I think the difference is online logs.

It's more than the online logs. Actually, I think the online logs are only a tiny part of it. Most geocaches, by far, are easier to find than a typical letterbox. You simply follow the arrow until you get to the area and then search for the container. Letterboxing is more work on the front end of the hunt. Add to this the enticement of a geocache on an online map versus the relative mystery of a letterbox. The reason there are fewer letterboxers is probably the same as the reason there are fewer multis and puzzles sought--it's more work. Placing a box is harder, too. You need a stamp, but not only that, to do it "right" it has to be custom. Then there's the push to mainstream the hobby. The more folks who participate the more revenue. I've not seen nearly the push to mainstream letterboxing as I have geocaching.

Naw, I think online logs is only a tiny reason for the higher interest in geocaching over letterboxing.

That’s a very good analysis, and I have to agree.

Comparing Letterboxing to Geocaching is a bit like comparing a formal Calligraphy Correspondence Club to the world of email.

My only letterbox-related point was to agree with Toz's statement about online logs. I see an online log as being only a peripheral component of caching to which one must apply common sense and patience, not a sacred thing in and of itself which one must revere as if it were the Constitution of the United States.

I think that Brian hit it on the head -- the big appeal about geocaching is the sense of community, largely derived from online logs and other online interactions, and from real-world interactions such as events and meetings.

3.9k · October 1, 2008

AARRRGGGHH! The dreaded quintuple post demon has struck again! Deleted duplicate content.

Edited October 1, 2008 by Vinny & Sue Team

38.2k · October 1, 2008

Most geocaches, by far, are easier to find than a typical letterbox. You simply follow the arrow until you get to the area and then search for the container. Letterboxing is more work on the front end of the hunt. Add to this the enticement of a geocache on an online map versus the relative mystery of a letterbox.

That hasn't been my experience. I've found dozens of letterboxes and the overwhelming majority were a cinch to find. "Start at the boulder, walk 50 paces NW and inside the hollow oak tree you'll find what you are looking for".

As far as ease of placement, I don't need to buy a 100+ dollar electronic device to place a letterbox. I don't need to spend $15 on swag. I do need a stamp, and though carving a stamp is the preferred method, I've found a good number of letterboxes with $2 store bought stamps. - Briansnat (P0F88X0)

3.2k · October 1, 2008

More tongue-in-cheek KBI? It's hard to tell.

Nope, not tongue-in-cheek.

Anyhow, if I am with a group of people and they all log a cache (letting everyone know that the cache is OK) and I don't log it, then how does that support what you just said? I think you are cutting with a dull knife again.

If the others who were with you successfully documented the status of the cache online, then why would you think that would have anything to do with my point?

14.3k · October 1, 2008

You'd think that letterboxing would be far more popular than geocaching, but it doesn't come close. I think the difference is online logs.

It's more than the online logs. Actually, I think the online logs are only a tiny part of it. Most geocaches, by far, are easier to find than a typical letterbox. You simply follow the arrow until you get to the area and then search for the container. Letterboxing is more work on the front end of the hunt. Add to this the enticement of a geocache on an online map versus the relative mystery of a letterbox. The reason there are fewer letterboxers is probably the same as the reason there are fewer multis and puzzles sought--it's more work. Placing a box is harder, too. You need a stamp, but not only that, to do it "right" it has to be custom. Then there's the push to mainstream the hobby. The more folks who participate the more revenue. I've not seen nearly the push to mainstream letterboxing as I have geocaching.

Naw, I think online logs is only a tiny reason for the higher interest in geocaching over letterboxing.

That's a very good analysis, and I have to agree.

Comparing Letterboxing to Geocaching is a bit like comparing a formal Calligraphy Correspondence Club to the world of email.

My only letterbox-related point was to agree with Toz's statement about online logs. I see an online log as being only a peripheral component of caching to which one must apply common sense and patience, not a sacred thing in and of itself which one must revere as if it were the Constitution of the United States.

I think that Brian hit it on the head -- the big appeal about geocaching is the sense of community, largely derived from online logs and other online interactions, and from real-world interactions such as events and meetings.

I agree. It that spirit stifled because some don't log caches that don't turn them on? I think not logging caches that we don't like helps keep a positive spirit and follows a live and let live philosophy. Think of a book review. What if you read a review on a mystery book that said "I hate mystery books. This book stunk." The first thing many people would think is "why did you read it? When you got the book in your hand and read a few pages it should have been obvious that it was a mystery book which you don't like." Of course, if mystery books were like geocaches, some people would say, "I finished reading the book so I could document my reading experience and let others know that I think that mystery books stink." That approach doesn't make much sense to me. So I'm sticking with approach.

14.3k · October 1, 2008

More tongue-in-cheek KBI? It's hard to tell.

Nope, not tongue-in-cheek.

Anyhow, if I am with a group of people and they all log a cache (letting everyone know that the cache is OK) and I don't log it, then how does that support what you just said? I think you are cutting with a dull knife again.

If the others who were with you successfully documented the status of the cache online, then why would you think that would have anything to do with my point?

I bolded it for you:

There is good reason for logging your experience online, it lets other cachers know the condition of the cache, when it was last found and gives you the oppurtunity to comment on anything else that is relevant. This is especially useful for the cache owher and people attempting to find the cache after you. People spend their time, money and effort setting and finding caches, it's only polite to let them know the condition of the cache and when it has been found, to save them any unnecessary dissapointment.

Precisely. This is a critical component of one of the primary arguments that is used every time people try to convince me that bogus Smiley logs are inherently immoral. The glaring inconsistency in their premise is that fact that few of these folks ever seem to be bothered at all by the found-it-but-didn't-log-it-online form of bogus logging, which as you (and I, and many others here) have clearly shown, presents the very same – and very real and very annoying – potential problem.

You lumped me in a group that I didn't belong in. You agreed with vw_keychain's assertion that not logging creates a problem. Then I showed when I don't log that it doesn't create that problem because the people I'm with at the time let everyone know that the cache is still OK.

3.2k · October 1, 2008

You lumped me in a group that I didn't belong in.

I didn’t lump you in with anybody – I never even mentioned you in that post.

You agreed with vw_keychain's assertion that not logging creates a problem. Then I showed when I don't log that it doesn't create that problem because the people I'm with at the time let everyone know that the cache is still OK.

And then you pointed out a very specific case in which my point does not apply; and then I effectively agreed with you that it does not apply in that very specific case.

Is it not obvious that I was NOT talking about you?

Is there still a problem?

Edit to add: You might want to note the word "potential" in front of the word "problem." It's easy to find; you bolded it yourself.

Edited October 1, 2008 by KBI

38.2k · October 1, 2008

Think of a book review. What if you read a review on a mystery book that said "I hate mystery books. This book stunk."

But what if everybody who didn't like the book doesn't write a review? I'm going to see nothing but positive reviews and it may entice me to buy a book that I'm really not interested in.

Same with caches. With all the chaff out there in the form of micro spew, it's harder and harder for me to find the caches that I like. When I bring this up in the forums I'm told that I need to do research before I select caches to find. OK, if I do that and don't see any negative logs then I'm going to have a skewed view of the quality of the cache.

October 1, 2008

I like the idea of not logging finds on line and have started deleting all of my found-it's.

I have encountered a small problem, The white out isn't soaking through my PC screen.

14.3k · October 1, 2008

Think of a book review. What if you read a review on a mystery book that said "I hate mystery books. This book stunk."

But what if everybody who didn't like the book doesn't write a review? I'm going to see nothing but positive reviews and it may entice me to buy a book that I'm really not interested in.

Same with caches. With all the chaff out there in the form of micro spew, it's harder and harder for me to find the caches that I like. When I bring this up in the forums I'm told that I need to do research before I select caches to find. OK, if I do that and don't see any negative logs then I'm going to have a skewed view of the quality of the cache.

Brian the reality is that hardly anyone writes negative reviews because they don't want to hurt people's feelings. Many people don't think that a game and personal preferences are worth hurting people's feelings over. If you are in my area and you don't like microspew then look at the caches I have been logging. If everyone did this you could share cache lists with people that have similar interests as you. Edited October 1, 2008 by TrailGators

24.7k · October 1, 2008

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

The loooong history of Letterboxing is proof enough of that.

The looong history of letterboxing shows that the popularity of geocaching has blown by letterboxing in a

just a few years. I think it can be reasonably argued that instant feedback of online logs and the sense of community and shared experiences that they foster are a big part of this.

I can drive 30 miles and schlep a letterbox 5 miles up the side of a mountain and not know if anyone found it until I drive 30 miles and climb 5 miles again to check it. Even if I do check, I just see a stamp. I don't know if the finder had fun. I won't know about his adventure along the way anything other than he got there and stamped in.

One of my earliest geocaches received a log that said in part "Thanks for this bonding experience with my daughters". That log and the idea that I could have a positive affect on others simply by hiding a box in the woods is what spurred me on to more hides. That's feedback that I would not have received from letterboxing and probably the reason why I've hidden nearly 250 geocaches and 0 letterboxes (though I do hunt letterboxes).

Look at the two sports. Letterboxing requires that you spend $4 to make (or buy) a stamp. Geocaching involves an investment of at least $100 to get started, then people have to learn to use a fairly complicated electronic device. Letterboxing has been around well over 100 years. Geocaching is going on it's 9th year. You'd think that letterboxing would be far more popular than geocaching, but it doesn't come close. I think the difference is online logs.

Agreed. I started because of the hunt. I stayed because of the bonus of there being a community.

1.3k · October 1, 2008

Any who has downloaded or copied coordinates here has to have an account. Now I understand why some people don't want to post their finds online.. privacy issues, don't want to play the numbers game, etc.

I know this would require some code tinkering but how about allowing people to post their finds using their account but the account itself not being made public . ie, allow a finder to be able to be anonymous while posting the find. I also very strongly believe it should be an option to for an account to hide all data, including the number of finds and hides. I feel that it's no one business how many finds or hides I have done unless I want the info to be made public.

Just a thought, carry on.

3.9k · October 1, 2008

Any who has downloaded or copied coordinates here has to have an account. Now I understand why some people don't want to post their finds online.. privacy issues, don't want to play the numbers game, etc.

I know this would require some code tinkering but how about allowing people to post their finds using their account but the account itself not being made public . ie, allow a finder to be able to be anonymous while posting the find. I also very strongly believe it should be an option to for an account to hide all data, including the number of finds and hides. I feel that it's no one business how many finds or hides I have done unless I want the info to be made public.

Just a thought, carry on.

This might be an option in V2.0 of the web site when it's released after Tuesday.

3k · October 1, 2008

Agreed. I started because of the hunt. I stayed because of the bonus of there being a community.

Amen! <_<

October 1, 2008

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

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.

It did?

I’m sorry, but by your own admission that is an assumption on your part, not mine.

I remembered you weren’t crazy about the existence of bogus logs, but I also remembered (incorrectly?) that, aside from your obsession with a particular word, you and I eventually agreed that our viewpoints on that issue were almost identical.

I wasn’t really thinking of your (our?) viewpoint when I penned the word “evil.” Why, then, if my memory is accurate, did you feel the need to put yourself in that group anyway? If you do not see bogus logging as evil, then why in the world would you make the assumption that I was referring to you, personally, as a member of that group of people?

Ok if you read this post by Vinny you will see where I think the "evil" word was first used. As you can see it was in direct response to me. Clearly someone thinks I am in that group.

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...t&p=3631321

You posted a few hours later with two of your own. You can see what you said about Vinny.

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...t&p=3631547

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...t&p=3631554

Then yesterday you post this using the word evil.

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...t&p=3631554

I think it is a reasonable assumption that your use of the phrase "those who insist on seeing evil in every misuse of the feature" included me. If you have made a post rejecting Vinny's assertion about evil, then please point it out. If you missed all that and were simply unaware of that part of the debate and don't see me as part of those who insist on seeing evil in every misuse of the feature then by all means say so.

October 1, 2008

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?

Well, since you’ve offered – yes, please answer all those questions for me, as that would probably be very helpful. Then maybe you and I can at least come to an agreement as to exactly what your position is on this issue, and you can stop telling be how badly you’ve been misconstrued.

Especially if you could please include an answer to the last question you listed there, which is probably the most critical one.

I am sorry but the last question is "What exactly do you want to know?" How can I answer that?

October 1, 2008

Do I think they should be banned from Geocaching?
NO

Do I think it should be condemned?

Yes I am ok with that.

Do I think it should be condoned?

No

Do I spend time fretting about the problem?

No

Do I think it is undesireable?

Yes

Do I think it is equal to bogus logging?

No

Well, since you’ve offered – yes, please answer all those questions for me, as that would probably be very helpful. Then maybe you and I can at least come to an agreement as to exactly what your position is on this issue, and you can stop telling be how badly you’ve been misconstrued.

Especially if you could please include an answer to the last question you listed there, which is probably the most critical one.

Please don't try to say that leaving out information that may or may not help others, is equal to making up false information that may or may not harm others. If I find someone bleeding on the side of the road and I don't stop and give first aid I won't go to jail for it. If I find someone on the side of the road and make a plan to stick a knife in them and leave them bleeding, I can go to jail for it. Doing something that may be harmful is worse than failing to do something that may be helpful.

Edit to refine harmful scenario to be "maybe harmful".

Edited October 2, 2008 by traildad

4.7k · October 2, 2008

perhaps not everyone is taking into account vinny's relationship with "evil"?

3.9k · October 2, 2008

perhaps not everyone is taking into account vinny's relationship with "evil"?

shush! ...ssssshhhh!

(My relationship with "evil" is a very well-guarded secret...)

1.7k · October 2, 2008

perhaps not everyone is taking into account vinny's relationship with "evil"?

shush! ...ssssshhhh!

(My relationship with "evil" is a very well-guarded secret...)

pssst.... signature

3.9k · October 2, 2008

perhaps not everyone is taking into account vinny's relationship with "evil"?

shush! ...ssssshhhh!

(My relationship with "evil" is a very well-guarded secret...)

pssst.... signature

Huh? Ohhh...

let me look....

well, I see

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

but I don't see much anything else...

ohhhhh... duh....

ohhhh...

evil....

...could that be it?

:laughing:

Edited October 2, 2008 by Vinny & Sue Team

7.2k · October 2, 2008

That hasn't been my experience. I've found dozens of letterboxes and the overwhelming majority were a cinch to find. "Start at the boulder, walk 50 paces NW and inside the hollow oak tree you'll find what you are looking for".

That's the endgame. The front end is harder.

With geocaching the arrow with guide you no matter how far away you are. In letterboxing the clues start close in. You start off by having to figure out the starting point. You research the church, park, trail head, or whatever. In your example: "which boulder? Where?" Many times you only know it's near a particular town. That's a heck of a lot more work than you drive until your proximity alarm goes off or simply hitting the "next" button on the GPS.

Not only that, but I've yet to find a box as easy as most LPCs.

10.2k · October 2, 2008

That hasn't been my experience. I've found dozens of letterboxes and the overwhelming majority were a cinch to find. "Start at the boulder, walk 50 paces NW and inside the hollow oak tree you'll find what you are looking for".

That's the endgame. The front end is harder.

With geocaching the arrow with guide you no matter how far away you are. In letterboxing the clues start close in. You start off by having to figure out the starting point. You research the church, park, trail head, or whatever. In your example: "which boulder? Where?" Many times you only know it's near a particular town. That's a heck of a lot more work than you drive until your proximity alarm goes off or simply hitting the "next" button on the GPS.

Not only that, but I've yet to find a box as easy as most LPCs.

Here ya' go.

3.2k · October 2, 2008

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

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.

It did?

I’m sorry, but by your own admission that is an assumption on your part, not mine.

I remembered you weren’t crazy about the existence of bogus logs, but I also remembered (incorrectly?) that, aside from your obsession with a particular word, you and I eventually agreed that our viewpoints on that issue were almost identical.

I wasn’t really thinking of your (our?) viewpoint when I penned the word “evil.” Why, then, if my memory is accurate, did you feel the need to put yourself in that group anyway? If you do not see bogus logging as evil, then why in the world would you make the assumption that I was referring to you, personally, as a member of that group of people?

Ok if you read this post by Vinny you will see where I think the "evil" word was first used. As you can see it was in direct response to me. Clearly someone thinks I am in that group.

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...t&p=3631321

You posted a few hours later with two of your own. You can see what you said about Vinny.

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...t&p=3631547

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...t&p=3631554

Then yesterday you post this using the word evil.

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...t&p=3631554

I think it is a reasonable assumption that your use of the phrase "those who insist on seeing evil in every misuse of the feature" included me. If you have made a post rejecting Vinny's assertion about evil, then please point it out. If you missed all that and were simply unaware of that part of the debate and don't see me as part of those who insist on seeing evil in every misuse of the feature then by all means say so.

I have reviewed all your links, and I honestly don't see the relevance of any of them. I didn't see where you were placed into any official group, and, aside from Vinny's astute yet clearly sarcastic ramblings, I didn't see the word 'evil' anywhere.

This is very simple:

I did not specifically refer to you (or anyone else) by name in my post. Sorry to disappoint, but I wasn't even thinking of you when I wrote it.

You chose to take offense anyway.

Either your viewpoint places you in the group of people I described, or it doesn't; Which is it? I cannot answer that question; only you can answer that question.

If you ARE in that group, then why not simply admit it so we can straightforwardly discuss it?

If you are NOT in that group, then I obviously wasn’t talking about you; therefore what grounds do you have to complain about my post, and why do you keep bothering me?

Me (while talking to someone else, and readers in general): Some people see certain things as inherently evil.

You: How dare you lump me in with those people?

Me: Huh? I didn’t say YOU were in that group. Based on your earlier statements I don’t even consider you to be in that group.

You: But *I* interpreted it that way!

Me: Do YOU consider yourself to be in that group?

You: I just KNOW you were talking about me.

Me: I wasn’t. Why does this bother you? I ask again; Do YOU consider yourself to be in that group?

You: What makes you think I belong in that group?

This is growing tedious for everyone reading this thread, including me. Until and unless you answer the above bolded question to my satisfaction, I'm afraid I will have to ignore any further attempts on your part to pick a fight with me.

3.9k · October 2, 2008

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

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.

It did?

I’m sorry, but by your own admission that is an assumption on your part, not mine.

I remembered you weren’t crazy about the existence of bogus logs, but I also remembered (incorrectly?) that, aside from your obsession with a particular word, you and I eventually agreed that our viewpoints on that issue were almost identical.

I wasn’t really thinking of your (our?) viewpoint when I penned the word “evil.” Why, then, if my memory is accurate, did you feel the need to put yourself in that group anyway? If you do not see bogus logging as evil, then why in the world would you make the assumption that I was referring to you, personally, as a member of that group of people?

Ok if you read this post by Vinny you will see where I think the "evil" word was first used. As you can see it was in direct response to me. Clearly someone thinks I am in that group.

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...t&p=3631321

You posted a few hours later with two of your own. You can see what you said about Vinny.

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...t&p=3631547

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...t&p=3631554

Then yesterday you post this using the word evil.

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...t&p=3631554

I think it is a reasonable assumption that your use of the phrase "those who insist on seeing evil in every misuse of the feature" included me. If you have made a post rejecting Vinny's assertion about evil, then please point it out. If you missed all that and were simply unaware of that part of the debate and don't see me as part of those who insist on seeing evil in every misuse of the feature then by all means say so.

I have reviewed all your links, and I honestly don't see the relevance of any of them. I didn't see where you were placed into any official group, and, aside from Vinny's astute yet clearly sarcastic ramblings, I didn't see the word 'evil' anywhere.

This is very simple:

I did not specifically refer to you (or anyone else) by name in my post. Sorry to disappoint, but I wasn't even thinking of you when I wrote it.

You chose to take offense anyway.

Either your viewpoint places you in the group of people I described, or it doesn't; Which is it? I cannot answer that question; only you can answer that question.

If you ARE in that group, then why not simply admit it so we can straightforwardly discuss it?

If you are NOT in that group, then I obviously wasn’t talking about you; therefore what grounds do you have to complain about my post, and why do you keep bothering me?

Me (while talking to someone else, and readers in general): Some people see certain things as inherently evil.

You: How dare you lump me in with those people?

Me: Huh? I didn’t say YOU were in that group. Based on your earlier statements I don’t even consider you to be in that group.

You: But *I* interpreted it that way!

Me: Do YOU consider yourself to be in that group?

You: I just KNOW you were talking about me.

Me: I wasn’t. Why does this bother you? I ask again; Do YOU consider yourself to be in that group?

You: What makes you think I belong in that group?

This is growing tedious for everyone reading this thread, including me. Until and unless you answer the above bolded question to my satisfaction, I'm afraid I will have to ignore any further attempts on your part to pick a fight with me.

For the record, I must note that, as an outside and rather detached observer (I simply call the shots as I see them; the record is clear on that), I agree with KBI's overview, summary and synopsis of his recent conversation thread with Traildad. I also agree that it would be futile to try to discuss this matter any further with said poster, because it appears that he simply likes to argue.

October 3, 2008

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

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.

It did?

I’m sorry, but by your own admission that is an assumption on your part, not mine.

I remembered you weren’t crazy about the existence of bogus logs, but I also remembered (incorrectly?) that, aside from your obsession with a particular word, you and I eventually agreed that our viewpoints on that issue were almost identical.

I wasn’t really thinking of your (our?) viewpoint when I penned the word “evil.” Why, then, if my memory is accurate, did you feel the need to put yourself in that group anyway? If you do not see bogus logging as evil, then why in the world would you make the assumption that I was referring to you, personally, as a member of that group of people?

Ok if you read this post by Vinny you will see where I think the "evil" word was first used. As you can see it was in direct response to me. Clearly someone thinks I am in that group.

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...t&p=3631321

You posted a few hours later with two of your own. You can see what you said about Vinny.

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...t&p=3631547

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...t&p=3631554

Then yesterday you post this using the word evil.

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...t&p=3631554

I think it is a reasonable assumption that your use of the phrase "those who insist on seeing evil in every misuse of the feature" included me. If you have made a post rejecting Vinny's assertion about evil, then please point it out. If you missed all that and were simply unaware of that part of the debate and don't see me as part of those who insist on seeing evil in every misuse of the feature then by all means say so.

I have reviewed all your links, and I honestly don't see the relevance of any of them. I didn't see where you were placed into any official group, and, aside from Vinny's astute yet clearly sarcastic ramblings, I didn't see the word 'evil' anywhere.

Are you kidding. To read all that and now you "think" that saying I wasn't put in an "official" group so that discounts what I wrote? It is this kind of "debating" that makes you look like you are trying to score points. When was this ever about being in an official group? Give me a break.

Edit to add my response.

Edited October 3, 2008 by traildad

October 3, 2008

This is very simple:

I did not specifically refer to you (or anyone else) by name in my post. Sorry to disappoint, but I wasn't even thinking of you when I wrote it.

You chose to take offense anyway.

Well I already said that offense was not the right word. Do you think that if you repeat it that will make it true? Or are you hoping that some will read it and not see the previous posts and think it is true? Or do you think you get to decide what I am feeling?

October 3, 2008

I think cachers should sign the logbook and post on line.

Now.....somebody wake me when a Big Pile Of Sticks is spotted!

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

October 3, 2008

If you are NOT in that group, then I obviously wasn’t talking about you; therefore what grounds do you have to complain about my post, and why do you keep bothering me?

I think that kind of inflammatory rhetoric damages the discussion.

Me (while talking to someone else, and readers in general): Some people see certain things as inherently evil.

You: How dare you lump me in with those people?

Me: Huh? I didn’t say YOU were in that group. Based on your earlier statements I don’t even consider you to be in that group.

You: But *I* interpreted it that way!

Me: Do YOU consider yourself to be in that group?

You: I just KNOW you were talking about me.

Me: I wasn’t. Why does this bother you? I ask again; Do YOU consider yourself to be in that group?

You: What makes you think I belong in that group?

Well that is a nice fantasy but has no connection to the posts in question. The words above do not reflect what really happened. Maybe that is what the problem is. You seem to have a problem connecting to reality.

October 3, 2008

For the record, I must note that, as an outside and rather detached observer (I simply call the shots as I see them; the record is clear on that), I agree with KBI's overview, summary and synopsis of his recent conversation thread with Traildad. I also agree that it would be futile to try to discuss this matter any further with said poster, because it appears that he simply likes to argue.

A outside and rather detached observer to you own thread?

In reality it is futile to discuss bogus logging or not logging online with anyone that starts the tread with the title

Replying to The Terrible, Evil, Insidious Practice of Signing the Logbook and Failing to log online.

The title clearly shows you are not a outside detached observer.

October 3, 2008

This is growing tedious for everyone reading this thread, including me. Until and unless you answer the above bolded question to my satisfaction, I'm afraid I will have to ignore any further attempts on your part to pick a fight with me.

I already answered the questions below for you. I noticed you asked me to answer them but you didn't respond. I find it interesting how you decide what to respond to. So I don't see any point in answering any more of your questions unless you are willing to have a reasoned discussion.

Do I think they should be banned from Geocaching?

NO

Do I think it should be condemned?

Yes I am ok with that.

Do I think it should be condoned?

No

Do I spend time fretting about the problem?

No

Do I think it is undesireable?

Yes

Do I think it is equal to bogus logging?

No

October 3, 2008

I am all for signing the logbook and posting online.

Now......somebody wake me when you see that Big Pile Of Sticks!

ZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...

3.9k · October 3, 2008

For the record, I must note that, as an outside and rather detached observer (I simply call the shots as I see them; the record is clear on that), I agree with KBI's overview, summary and synopsis of his recent conversation thread with Traildad. I also agree that it would be futile to try to discuss this matter any further with said poster, because it appears that he simply likes to argue.

A outside and rather detached observer to you own thread?

In reality it is futile to discuss bogus logging or not logging online with anyone that starts the tread with the title

Replying to The Terrible, Evil, Insidious Practice of Signing the Logbook and Failing to log online.

The title clearly shows you are not a outside detached observer.

You have, for some reason, failed ot see the humor inherent in the title of the thread, and I never discuss anything with humor-deficient people, for most of them, I have learned from long and deep experience as a therapist and counselor, are fundamentalists, fanatics and zealots of one ilk/breed or another, and most of them have closed hearts. End of discussion.

October 3, 2008

I am guilty of this! I went on a lovely geocache bike ride last weekend and I have still not logged online. It's not because I dont' want to but because i either forget to log, or I get on to log and then get distracted by interesting reading in the forums.

Liek even now.....I'm in the forums but I have to leave in a couple minutes to drive the kidlet to school....so no logging them now either.

Hopefully I will this afternoon

7.2k · October 3, 2008

I've got a question.

First the set up. Nearly everyone says "if you don't like'em, don't hunt'em." Of course, you don't always know which ones you're not going to like until you start hunting them. Then, when you find you're not having fun, quit and go on to the next cache, right?

Now, there are several steps in the process at which you can quit and move on:

Read the title, description, and/or particulars like size, type, terrain, etc.
Select the cache in your GPS. Sometimes this is before the above.
You head off towards the cache and start observing where, in general, the cache is located--rural vs urban vs whatever.
You get to ground zero--of either the final or intermediate stages--and observe the surrounding.
You home in on the hunt trying to find the final or stage.
You find the cache or stage and have it in your eyesight.
You put your hands on the cache.
You retrieve the cache.
You open the cache.
You find and retrieve the logbook.
Optionally, you read the logbook.
You sign in.
You return the logbook.
You close the cache and return it to its hiding spot.
You leave.
You get home and look up the cache page.
Optionally, you read the cache page.
You go to the visit log page.
You think of something to say.
You say it.
You submit your log.

Okay, so it's said that we should quit if we're not having fun, but where on the continuum above can we quit? Is there a place where we can not quit and have to follow through all the way to the end?

7.2k · October 3, 2008

Here's another question. You find a cache. Later the owner moves it and says it's okay to log another find because of the new location. Do you go find it and log a new find? Is it a lie to not log that new find? It certainly fits the definition of a find if you didn't know where it was previously, right? But what about the one-find-for-one-waypoint-code?

8k · October 3, 2008

I've got a question.

First the set up. Nearly everyone says "if you don't like'em, don't hunt'em." Of course, you don't always know which ones you're not going to like until you start hunting them. Then, when you find you're not having fun, quit and go on to the next cache, right?

Now, there are several steps in the process at which you can quit and move on:

Read the title, description, and/or particulars like size, type, terrain, etc.

Select the cache in your GPS. Sometimes this is before the above.

You head off towards the cache and start observing where, in general, the cache is located--rural vs urban vs whatever.

You get to ground zero--of either the final or intermediate stages--and observe the surrounding.

You home in on the hunt trying to find the final or stage.

You find the cache or stage and have it in your eyesight.

You put your hands on the cache.

You retrieve the cache.

You open the cache.

You find and retrieve the logbook.

Optionally, you read the logbook.

You sign in.

You return the logbook.

You close the cache and return it to its hiding spot.

You leave.

You get home and look up the cache page.

Optionally, you read the cache page.

You go to the visit log page.

You think of something to say.

You say it.

You submit your log.

Okay, so it's said that we should quit if we're not having fun, but where on the continuum above can we quit? Is there a place where we can not quit and have to follow through all the way to the end?

I thinks CR is right-on in that you should be able to quit when you stop having fun. However, if you do 4 you should also do 15, if you do 8 or 9 you should also do 14, and if you do 10 you should also do 13. :rolleyes:

3.9k · October 3, 2008

I've got a question.

First the set up. Nearly everyone says "if you don't like'em, don't hunt'em." Of course, you don't always know which ones you're not going to like until you start hunting them. Then, when you find you're not having fun, quit and go on to the next cache, right?

Now, there are several steps in the process at which you can quit and move on:

Read the title, description, and/or particulars like size, type, terrain, etc.

Select the cache in your GPS. Sometimes this is before the above.

You head off towards the cache and start observing where, in general, the cache is located--rural vs urban vs whatever.

You get to ground zero--of either the final or intermediate stages--and observe the surrounding.

You home in on the hunt trying to find the final or stage.

You find the cache or stage and have it in your eyesight.

You put your hands on the cache.

You retrieve the cache.

You open the cache.

You find and retrieve the logbook.

Optionally, you read the logbook.

You sign in.

You return the logbook.

You close the cache and return it to its hiding spot.

You leave.

You get home and look up the cache page.

Optionally, you read the cache page.

You go to the visit log page.

You think of something to say.

You say it.

You submit your log.

Okay, so it's said that we should quit if we're not having fun, but where on the continuum above can we quit? Is there a place where we can not quit and have to follow through all the way to the end?

I'd say that at some point in number 3 you know well enough if the cache is a walk through the woods in a park or if it's a parking lot cache, and if you really dislike parking lot caches you can keep driving and be nearly sure that you've just avoided another one. You could even spend some time with Google Maps and determine this before leaving the computer if you choose to invest a little time (there are other ways too, but I'll stick to your list for now). So if you get to step 4 and choose to continue then you're the one that will determine if you have fun during the rest of the list, not the hider.

I'd also think that if you get all the way to 12, then it's better to keep going all the way to 21. Not doing so would be rude.

3.9k · October 3, 2008

Here's another question. You find a cache. Later the owner moves it and says it's okay to log another find because of the new location. Do you go find it and log a new find? Is it a lie to not log that new find? It certainly fits the definition of a find if you didn't know where it was previously, right?

I'd say if go to the trouble of finding it again then you certainly would have the option of logging it again, but I don't think that not logging it would be as rude as if you'd not logged a cache you'd never found. In this case you may choose not to log it again because your opinion is that it would make your stats inaccurate with what you want them to show (I would also agree with this now, but I didn't always feel that way).

But what about the one-find-for-one-waypoint-code?

That's not a rule or a guideline, it's a way that some people describe their preference. So if that's your preference, don't log it again, and if it's not, log away. Neither way is wrong if the cache owner has invited a second Find log.

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

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment