Jump to content

Fake finds


Recommended Posts

It sounds like that cacher needs some anger management classes. Geez, it's only a smiley, no need to resort to insults and petty emails. I'm sure if he goes and signs the log, his find will stand.

 

Thumbs up on posting a picture of the log in your note! Seems you are armed and ready for battle.

Link to comment

I see that you have posted a photo of the log on the cache page... well done! There's really nothing more you can do, by the sounds of it. Groundspeak can insist that he not email you through their system, but if he already has your actual email address, I don't think there is anything they can do about that (still worth letting them know about it, though).

 

I still say, though, that it probably would have been best in the long run to have just ignored it and avoided all this angst. Geocachers eventually tend to run into one another on the trail, or at events, and its nice to know that they are, or could become your friends.

Link to comment

It sounds like that cacher needs some anger management classes. Geez, it's only a smiley, no need to resort to insults and petty emails. I'm sure if he goes and signs the log, his find will stand.

 

Thumbs up on posting a picture of the log in your note! Seems you are armed and ready for battle.

 

Hey you know what, when I work, I work hard and that includes caching. I have been out to one certain GZ 5 times in everything from scorching heat, pouring rain and freezing snow just to get that smiley but Im not going to give up, fake it and post online. I respect that the hider took time and planning to stump me! I thought this game was about the thrill of the hunt? I have had my fair share of bumps, bruised, wet feet, frozen butts, scratches, scrapes, ponytails cut out of briar bushes...you name it but my kids and I are die hard on getting that smiley! Some I guess, its just about the numbers. I dont think it makes a difference if you get one a day or 50, at least you are trying. My problem is that I work until 7pm daily which leaves me little time for hunting, so as for his little "number comment", who the h*ll cares! We are all out to have fun! HONEST fun! :P

Link to comment

I see that you have posted a photo of the log on the cache page... well done! There's really nothing more you can do, by the sounds of it. Groundspeak can insist that he not email you through their system, but if he already has your actual email address, I don't think there is anything they can do about that (still worth letting them know about it, though).

 

I still say, though, that it probably would have been best in the long run to have just ignored it and avoided all this angst. Geocachers eventually tend to run into one another on the trail, or at events, and its nice to know that they are, or could become your friends.

 

Yep, looks real wet doesnt it? :laughing: And is it me or did he use invisible ink? LOL This is just rediculous. I just cant stand liars. :sad:

Link to comment

I thought that someone had posted a link to knowledge book on log deletion earlier on in this thread but I can't seem to find it now.

 

In anycase I'd like to quote this section from it

MESSY SITUATION?

 

We know that sometimes this issue can be contentious. If the other party is being stubborn, ask yourself, "Is this dispute really worth my time?" Try being the bigger person and conceding the point. You may discover that you feel better for doing so. At the very least, it will put the matter quickly behind you.

 

While you ponder this, I think I will have a doughnut. :omnomnom:

Link to comment

Now my big question is how can I block this jerk from emailing me, considering he is getting nasty now? Is there some TOS he is violating? He did re-log his find with an offensive statement about me deleting it but I also deleted that one. I do not doubt he will ride again! Like a dang cockroach...shew, go away!

 

 

LOG NOTE:

Apparently little miss perfect, the git who placed this cache has never made a mistake before about which cache had a damp log. Furthermore she has now decided to try to slander my good name. I would highly suggest others avoid any caches placed by her because they simply are not exciting enough to deal with her BS! Its people like this cache owner who make others quit the game.

 

EMAIL:

I do intend to take it up with geocaching.com because I signed the log, there was no snow that day in the area, it was pouring down rain, and no one has ever complained about me before so now you are posting slanderous remarks about me. As for not describing what your lame cache looked like you will one day understand that when you go out and get more than one a day that sometimes you don't bother to make a note about what all the insignificant crap caches look like. As a noob you are doing a piss poor job interacting with other cachers!

 

Wow obviously this guy doesnt understand the concept of guide lines? To me a family sport should not be portrayed by an armchair logger who stands in his profile photo with a beer in his hand *snort* :rolleyes:

 

If I ever do so many caches in a day that I can't seem to remember any details at all about them - Than I did too many. Time to find a more worthwhile pursuit.

Wow, he posted the log note on his own disabled cache. :blink:

 

His biggest caching day looks to be less than 20 finds. His line about remembering cache containers is ridiculous in my opinion. Looks like he has been caching for about six months longer than you so the experience factor is clearly huge.

 

And he is a teacher! :ph34r: It would appear he may have some control issues.

 

Based on the photos on your cache page it looks to be a nice location. From the description it appears to be a decent container. I have a hard time believing a cacher could not remember finding this particular cache.

 

While I agree with the let it go advice this is one I would be very inclined to take on if I happened to be the cache owner. :anibad:

 

Good luck!

Link to comment

I thought that someone had posted a link to knowledge book on log deletion earlier on in this thread but I can't seem to find it now.

 

In anycase I'd like to quote this section from it

MESSY SITUATION?

 

We know that sometimes this issue can be contentious. If the other party is being stubborn, ask yourself, "Is this dispute really worth my time?" Try being the bigger person and conceding the point. You may discover that you feel better for doing so. At the very least, it will put the matter quickly behind you.

 

While you ponder this, I think I will have a doughnut. :omnomnom:

 

Great advice, Toz.

 

(and an amazingly efficient one, to boot!! :lol:)

Link to comment

By the way, what's a "GIT"?

From the urban dictionary ...

1. A completely ignorant, childish person with no manners.

2. A person who feels justified in their callow behaviour.

3. A pubescent kid who thinks it's totally cool to act like a moron on the internet, only because no one can actually reach through the screen and punch their lights out.

Link to comment

By the way, what's a "GIT"?

From the urban dictionary ...

1. A completely ignorant, childish person with no manners.

2. A person who feels justified in their callow behaviour.

3. A pubescent kid who thinks it's totally cool to act like a moron on the internet, only because no one can actually reach through the screen and punch their lights out.

 

So, he described himself.

Link to comment

What to do what to do?

It's your cache, so ultimately it's your call.

What I would do is post a maintenance completed log, noting that you checked the cache, found that the log was dry, and that the cacher who claimed otherwise did not sign the log. Then I would move on with bigger and better things. Life has enough burdens in store for all of us without adding to that by choices we make. Abide.

Based on the current info available I give this post a hearty +1. Followed up on the log, found the log to be fine and missing a sig. Call it out and be done with it. If the "finder" needs the find let him/her have it and don't worry about it.

 

Having once been in the unfortunate spot of not signing a cache (traded 4 coins in it, and forgot to sign), the next finder said I used invisible ink...the CO did a "inactivate cache", maintenance, enable thing and then deleted my log after all that. Deleting a log is one thing, but unless you simply email someone and ask for the story, all you do by inactivating/perform maintenance and then calling out a potential false log is escalating the situation so that many other cachers are aware. If its an honest mistake, you have probably made an enemy. My honest mistake of one time forgetting to sign could have been easily remedied if the CO just kept it between us vs letting the entire world know.

 

If you want to delete the log, thats your call, but I would advise against doing any time of activity that will send out notifications to every cacher in your local area which casts dispersion at one cacher, especially not being 100% sure of the story.

 

Have to disagree with my bud Wrastro for once, which is rare.

Edited by lamoracke
Link to comment

What to do what to do?

It's your cache, so ultimately it's your call.

What I would do is post a maintenance completed log, noting that you checked the cache, found that the log was dry, and that the cacher who claimed otherwise did not sign the log. Then I would move on with bigger and better things. Life has enough burdens in store for all of us without adding to that by choices we make. Abide.

Based on the current info available I give this post a hearty +1. Followed up on the log, found the log to be fine and missing a sig. Call it out and be done with it. If the "finder" needs the find let him/her have it and don't worry about it.

 

Having once been in the unfortunate spot of not signing a cache (traded 4 coins in it, and forgot to sign), the next finder said I used invisible ink...the CO did a "inactivate cache", maintenance, enable thing and then deleted my log after all that. Deleting a log is one thing, but unless you simply email someone and ask for the story, all you do by inactivating/perform maintenance and then calling out a potential false log is escalating the situation so that many other cachers are aware. If its an honest mistake, you have probably made an enemy. My honest mistake of one time forgetting to sign could have been easily remedied if the CO just kept it between us vs letting the entire world know.

 

If you want to delete the log, thats your call, but I would advise against doing any time of activity that will send out notifications to every cacher in your local area which casts dispersion at one cacher, especially not being 100% sure of the story.

 

Have to disagree with my bud Wrastro for once, which is rare.

In the situation you describe I would never question your find. How else could you trade coins? The situation being discussed in this thread is quite different. In the situation being discussed the "finder" claims to have signed the log and is unruly when questioned about it.

 

Thanks for the nice words but I will stick with my opinion on this one. B)

Link to comment
Last week at work I received a "found it" log through my email notifications - although I was not happy to see the 2 dreaded words "LOG WET". Being my only true hidden cache ( I have 1 adopted one also ) I felt impelled to be the idiot who rushes out in the dark, in the rain to retreive my cache to check the problem.

 

Idiot? No way! If I were you, I would take pride in being a good cache owner and checking on and maintaining my caches.

 

 

To me a family sport should not be portrayed by an armchair logger who stands in his profile photo with a beer in his hand *snort* :rolleyes:

 

I take offense to this. I think this game (that families can play) should be portrayed by its participants wether they are mommies with babies or single dudes who drink beer. The universal appeal and diversity among participants is one of the great things about the game to me. Either way, I have looked at the picture a few times and I don't think you can even say for sure that it's a beer. I definately can't. It could be a root beer, NA beer, grape soda, or something else. You just automatically assumed it was a beer because it fit the negative image of him you're creating in your mind. :rolleyes:

 

...but yeah it's probably a beer.

 

I still say, though, that it probably would have been best in the long run to have just ignored it and avoided all this angst. Geocachers eventually tend to run into one another on the trail, or at events, and its nice to know that they are, or could become your friends.

 

I don't think having a disagreement with someone means they are not your friend or could not become your friend. In fact, it could even cause the opposite to be true.

Link to comment

Huh... his log is back...

 

You know, he's just going to claim that he skipped a line or two on the log, so you might do well to post a wider angle view of the whole page.

 

Preemptive strike and all. :anibad:

 

I certainly would not want this guy as a teacher if he can not tell the truth. There was NO SIGNATURE! And if it was so wet, how could have he managed to sign without gouging the paper...we all have been there.

Link to comment
I still say, though, that it probably would have been best in the long run to have just ignored it and avoided all this angst. Geocachers eventually tend to run into one another on the trail, or at events, and its nice to know that they are, or could become your friends.

 

I don't think having a disagreement with someone means they are not your friend or could not become your friend. In fact, it could even cause the opposite to be true.

 

Yeah, well, youI agree with narcissa, so... :unsure:

 

Just kidding. You are right that having a disagreement with someone means they are not your friend, of course, but this situation has escalated way beyond that stage.

Link to comment

Now my big question is how can I block this jerk from emailing me, considering he is getting nasty now? Is there some TOS he is violating? He did re-log his find with an offensive statement about me deleting it but I also deleted that one. I do not doubt he will ride again! Like a dang cockroach...shew, go away!

 

 

LOG NOTE:

Apparently little miss perfect, the git who placed this cache has never made a mistake before about which cache had a damp log. Furthermore she has now decided to try to slander my good name. I would highly suggest others avoid any caches placed by her because they simply are not exciting enough to deal with her BS! Its people like this cache owner who make others quit the game.

 

EMAIL:

I do intend to take it up with geocaching.com because I signed the log, there was no snow that day in the area, it was pouring down rain, and no one has ever complained about me before so now you are posting slanderous remarks about me. As for not describing what your lame cache looked like you will one day understand that when you go out and get more than one a day that sometimes you don't bother to make a note about what all the insignificant crap caches look like. As a noob you are doing a piss poor job interacting with other cachers!

 

Wow obviously this guy doesnt understand the concept of guide lines? To me a family sport should not be portrayed by an armchair logger who stands in his profile photo with a beer in his hand *snort* :rolleyes:

 

If I ever do so many caches in a day that I can't seem to remember any details at all about them - Than I did too many. Time to find a more worthwhile pursuit.

Wow, he posted the log note on his own disabled cache. :blink:

 

His biggest caching day looks to be less than 20 finds. His line about remembering cache containers is ridiculous in my opinion. Looks like he has been caching for about six months longer than you so the experience factor is clearly huge.

 

And he is a teacher! :ph34r: It would appear he may have some control issues.

 

Based on the photos on your cache page it looks to be a nice location. From the description it appears to be a decent container. I have a hard time believing a cacher could not remember finding this particular cache.

 

While I agree with the let it go advice this is one I would be very inclined to take on if I happened to be the cache owner. :anibad:

 

Good luck!

 

Thank you for understanding.

Now I am getting emailed from obviously a friend of his *jeez grow up people*! I came to this forum for advice on what to do in a sticky situation. I have taken a video of the log showing NO signature. And yes there was another online post that beared no physical siggy too that was also looked into and as 2 mature adults we came to a compromise. My whole point is that this guy was rude and ignorant from the get go. All the emails and headers were reported to Geocaching and will be investigated. I am the CO and I have the right to do what I please when it comes to situations like this as any other respectable CO would, so why am I getting bashed for following guildlines? This is crazy!

Link to comment

What to do what to do?

It's your cache, so ultimately it's your call.

What I would do is post a maintenance completed log, noting that you checked the cache, found that the log was dry, and that the cacher who claimed otherwise did not sign the log. Then I would move on with bigger and better things. Life has enough burdens in store for all of us without adding to that by choices we make. Abide.

Based on the current info available I give this post a hearty +1. Followed up on the log, found the log to be fine and missing a sig. Call it out and be done with it. If the "finder" needs the find let him/her have it and don't worry about it.

 

Having once been in the unfortunate spot of not signing a cache (traded 4 coins in it, and forgot to sign), the next finder said I used invisible ink...the CO did a "inactivate cache", maintenance, enable thing and then deleted my log after all that. Deleting a log is one thing, but unless you simply email someone and ask for the story, all you do by inactivating/perform maintenance and then calling out a potential false log is escalating the situation so that many other cachers are aware. If its an honest mistake, you have probably made an enemy. My honest mistake of one time forgetting to sign could have been easily remedied if the CO just kept it between us vs letting the entire world know.

 

If you want to delete the log, thats your call, but I would advise against doing any time of activity that will send out notifications to every cacher in your local area which casts dispersion at one cacher, especially not being 100% sure of the story.

 

Have to disagree with my bud Wrastro for once, which is rare.

In the situation you describe I would never question your find. How else could you trade coins? The situation being discussed in this thread is quite different. In the situation being discussed the "finder" claims to have signed the log and is unruly when questioned about it.

 

Thanks for the nice words but I will stick with my opinion on this one. B)

 

The coin thing and no siggy oopsie is an exeption to this. You left evidence of your visit. He can't even describe what the cache looks like, its contents or gz. I tad different there. :(

Link to comment

Thank you for understanding.

Now I am getting emailed from obviously a friend of his *jeez grow up people*! I came to this forum for advice on what to do in a sticky situation. I have taken a video of the log showing NO signature. And yes there was another online post that beared no physical siggy too that was also looked into and as 2 mature adults we came to a compromise. My whole point is that this guy was rude and ignorant from the get go. All the emails and headers were reported to Geocaching and will be investigated. I am the CO and I have the right to do what I please when it comes to situations like this as any other respectable CO would, so why am I getting bashed for following guildlines? This is crazy!

 

You will find that there are all kinds in geocaching. Including "GITS. IMO, you've been correct in all you have done. If it is your personal email, put the offenders on ignore and straight into the spam folder. If it is GC email, continue to report to Groundspeak, and then ignore. Don't even respond to them. You can't fix stupid, so don't try to. Just keep on caching!

Edited by BC & MsKitty
Link to comment

Ling Honey I do not know you, and you are obviously not in my area, but let me offer some moral support. After reading the cache page, (well done btw) and more importantly, the logs on the page, I would have to conclude from a distance that the cacher in question is pretty po'd because you "fronted him out".

You were well within your rights to respond as you did. You seem to be a pleasant person judging from your posts here and the replies you posted on the log page.

I think you have done a great job of keeping your cool, ( a lot better than I would have)and a great job on your first cache . Don't let one jackal spoil it for you!!

Just my .02 worth!!

Link to comment

OH WOW...this is too close to home. I searched his disabled listing because someone said he had posted on it. I didnt quite understand what was being pointed out so I had to go take a look see.

My father is from YSU - the archaeology/anthropology dept. Dr. White (or Black beard as we all called him) was a very close friend of the family along with his wife who ran a business with my mother. And Kat is still a friend of mine today. My father worked under Dr Fry, was viewed in magazines and also worked on the blast furnace.....creepy. I wonder if hes one of the late students?

Totally off subject, just had to have an "awe" moment. My dad being an archaeologist is what got me deep into this game. I grew up in the Quaker digs and was always fascinated with what "was".....My future caches will show this. :anicute:

Link to comment

Ling Honey I do not know you, and you are obviously not in my area, but let me offer some moral support. After reading the cache page, (well done btw) and more importantly, the logs on the page, I would have to conclude from a distance that the cacher in question is pretty po'd because you "fronted him out".

You were well within your rights to respond as you did. You seem to be a pleasant person judging from your posts here and the replies you posted on the log page.

I think you have done a great job of keeping your cool, ( a lot better than I would have)and a great job on your first cache . Don't let one jackal spoil it for you!!

Just my .02 worth!!

 

Thank you N&N. I do appreciate that. B)

As I told another cacher, there is also another name on the geo log that is not on the physical. I treated it the same and it was resolved with a reasonable explaination and proof...so there for, it was left alone, as is. This guy was on the defense from the get go. Why? His rudeness was immaturity was uncalled for.

Link to comment

Thank you for understanding.

Now I am getting emailed from obviously a friend of his *jeez grow up people*! I came to this forum for advice on what to do in a sticky situation. I have taken a video of the log showing NO signature. And yes there was another online post that beared no physical siggy too that was also looked into and as 2 mature adults we came to a compromise. My whole point is that this guy was rude and ignorant from the get go. All the emails and headers were reported to Geocaching and will be investigated. I am the CO and I have the right to do what I please when it comes to situations like this as any other respectable CO would, so why am I getting bashed for following guildlines? This is crazy!

 

You will find that there are all kinds in geocaching. Including "GITS. IMO, you've been correct in all you have done. If it is your personal email, put the offenders on ignore and straight into the spam folder. If it is GC email, continue to report to Groundspeak, and then ignore. Don't even respond to them. You can't fix stupid, so don't try to. Just keep on caching!

Im done. All headers, emails, and logs are in good hands now :anibad:

Link to comment
I still say, though, that it probably would have been best in the long run to have just ignored it and avoided all this angst. Geocachers eventually tend to run into one another on the trail, or at events, and its nice to know that they are, or could become your friends.

 

I don't think having a disagreement with someone means they are not your friend or could not become your friend. In fact, it could even cause the opposite to be true.

 

Yeah, well, youI agree with narcissa, so... :unsure:

 

Just kidding. You are right that having a disagreement with someone means they are not your friend, of course, but this situation has escalated way beyond that stage.

 

I dunno, knowschad. Looks like they have something in common. I see the beginnings of a friendship.

 

My father is from YSU - the archaeology/anthropology dept. Dr. White (or Black beard as we all called him) was a very close friend of the family along with his wife who ran a business with my mother. And Kat is still a friend of mine today. My father worked under Dr Fry, was viewed in magazines and also worked on the blast furnace.....creepy. I wonder if hes one of the late students?

Link to comment
I still say, though, that it probably would have been best in the long run to have just ignored it and avoided all this angst. Geocachers eventually tend to run into one another on the trail, or at events, and its nice to know that they are, or could become your friends.

 

I don't think having a disagreement with someone means they are not your friend or could not become your friend. In fact, it could even cause the opposite to be true.

 

Yeah, well, youI agree with narcissa, so... :unsure:

 

Just kidding. You are right that having a disagreement with someone means they are not your friend, of course, but this situation has escalated way beyond that stage.

 

I dunno, knowschad. Looks like they have something in common. I see the beginnings of a friendship.

 

My father is from YSU - the archaeology/anthropology dept. Dr. White (or Black beard as we all called him) was a very close friend of the family along with his wife who ran a business with my mother. And Kat is still a friend of mine today. My father worked under Dr Fry, was viewed in magazines and also worked on the blast furnace.....creepy. I wonder if hes one of the late students?

 

 

:laughing: ROFLMAO :laughing: really? I needed a laugh Simpjkee, thank you. Brightened my day :D

Link to comment

Ling Honey I do not know you, and you are obviously not in my area, but let me offer some moral support. After reading the cache page, (well done btw) and more importantly, the logs on the page, I would have to conclude from a distance that the cacher in question is pretty po'd because you "fronted him out".

You were well within your rights to respond as you did. You seem to be a pleasant person judging from your posts here and the replies you posted on the log page.

I think you have done a great job of keeping your cool, ( a lot better than I would have)and a great job on your first cache . Don't let one jackal spoil it for you!!

Just my .02 worth!!

 

Thank you N&N. I do appreciate that. B)

As I told another cacher, there is also another name on the geo log that is not on the physical. I treated it the same and it was resolved with a reasonable explaination and proof...so there for, it was left alone, as is. This guy was on the defense from the get go. Why? His rudeness was immaturity was uncalled for.

 

If I had been drinking, and my log was rejected by an attractive young lady, I would be upset also. :P

Link to comment

I shouldn't have looked at the page.

 

I have a word for people who make a big deal over presumed "faked logs".

 

Now the way the guidelines are written, geocache owners are told to delete any log that appears to be bogus, counterfeit, off-topic, or otherwise inappropriate. The game depends on cache finders being able to rely to some degree on the logs of previous cachers. Someone sitting at home writing couch potato logs can, according to briansnat, result in someone wasting their time or gasoline looking for a cache they might have skipped because it is likely missing. And false logs might make a cache owner decide to skip a needed maintenance visit. So cache owners are told to take responsibility for the quality control of all posts to the cache page. This give them the ability to delete logs. It is not an ability to be taken lightly.

 

Some people will find an unsigned log with or without a bogus sounding log and immediately accuse the poster of cheating. Cheating logs however are very rare. More likely you will see an error. Perhaps the wrong cache was logged or the finder confused two different caches that day. Sometimes, the finder truly was unable to sign the log for some reason. My feeling is that this is a fun game and being a stickler about signing a log is not in the spirit of the game. If someone gives a reasonable excuse you should accept it.

 

Now, if you have someone sitting at home logging finds on caches with "Didn't sign because the log is wet" over and over again, then the logs would appear to be bogus, and should be deleted. But if someone was out finding caches in the area and it seems they signed the log on every cache but yours, I wouldn't make a big deal. In your case, it appears the log was bogus. When you checked the cache the log was dry and finder's signature was missing. Per the guidelines you are in your rights to delete the log. But it could be the finder confused your cache with another they found that day. Perhaps the didn't even look for yours but got it confused with another cache nearby. It seems a bit of a jump to accuse someone of cheating unless you can show a pattern in their logging. When you accuse someone of cheating, you can expect them to call you a git and say you have slander their name.

 

What I object to is the guideline you used in your note. The rights and duties for a cache owner to delete bogus logs come from the maintenance section of the guidelines, not the section on logging physical caches. The section you quote is actually meant to prevent cache owners from deleting logs where the physical log has been signed; it is not a statement saying that the physical log must be signed in order to log a find. This section was added a couple of years ago when Groundspeak decided to end the practice some cache owners had of putting additional requirements for logging finds online. They would have caches that said thing like "In order to log a find, post a picture of yourself standing on your head at the cache site". These caches were popular, but annoyed many cachers who were simply interested in finding caches and not taking silly pictures. Groundspeak eventually decided to end the ability of cache owners to delete logs for failing to meet an additional requirement. The still wanted cache owners to delete bogus logs. If the physical log is sign, the online log can be assumed to be not bogus and therefor it should not be deleted. If there is no signature in the physical log, it is left up to the cache owner to determine if the find was bogus or not.

Link to comment

I shouldn't have looked at the page.

 

I have a word for people who make a big deal over presumed "faked logs".

 

Now the way the guidelines are written, geocache owners are told to delete any log that appears to be bogus, counterfeit, off-topic, or otherwise inappropriate. The game depends on cache finders being able to rely to some degree on the logs of previous cachers. Someone sitting at home writing couch potato logs can, according to briansnat, result in someone wasting their time or gasoline looking for a cache they might have skipped because it is likely missing. And false logs might make a cache owner decide to skip a needed maintenance visit. So cache owners are told to take responsibility for the quality control of all posts to the cache page. This give them the ability to delete logs. It is not an ability to be taken lightly.

 

Some people will find an unsigned log with or without a bogus sounding log and immediately accuse the poster of cheating. Cheating logs however are very rare. More likely you will see an error. Perhaps the wrong cache was logged or the finder confused two different caches that day. Sometimes, the finder truly was unable to sign the log for some reason. My feeling is that this is a fun game and being a stickler about signing a log is not in the spirit of the game. If someone gives a reasonable excuse you should accept it.

 

Now, if you have someone sitting at home logging finds on caches with "Didn't sign because the log is wet" over and over again, then the logs would appear to be bogus, and should be deleted. But if someone was out finding caches in the area and it seems they signed the log on every cache but yours, I wouldn't make a big deal. In your case, it appears the log was bogus. When you checked the cache the log was dry and finder's signature was missing. Per the guidelines you are in your rights to delete the log. But it could be the finder confused your cache with another they found that day. Perhaps the didn't even look for yours but got it confused with another cache nearby. It seems a bit of a jump to accuse someone of cheating unless you can show a pattern in their logging. When you accuse someone of cheating, you can expect them to call you a git and say you have slander their name.

 

What I object to is the guideline you used in your note. The rights and duties for a cache owner to delete bogus logs come from the maintenance section of the guidelines, not the section on logging physical caches. The section you quote is actually meant to prevent cache owners from deleting logs where the physical log has been signed; it is not a statement saying that the physical log must be signed in order to log a find. This section was added a couple of years ago when Groundspeak decided to end the practice some cache owners had of putting additional requirements for logging finds online. They would have caches that said thing like "In order to log a find, post a picture of yourself standing on your head at the cache site". These caches were popular, but annoyed many cachers who were simply interested in finding caches and not taking silly pictures. Groundspeak eventually decided to end the ability of cache owners to delete logs for failing to meet an additional requirement. The still wanted cache owners to delete bogus logs. If the physical log is sign, the online log can be assumed to be not bogus and therefor it should not be deleted. If there is no signature in the physical log, it is left up to the cache owner to determine if the find was bogus or not.

 

You have a lot of good points however, I am not the type of person to single out one or another on anything and I took plenty of time dotting my "i's" and crossing my "t's" on this one. I did investigate the matter thoroughly before the decision to delete was an option. For example...there is another cache in the near area that he also claimed so there was no confusion. I emailed him with that thought but he was standing his ground on seeking my cache. Second of all, as mentioned before- the log was in perfect condition to receive a signature - which he also claimed he did (that is why I posted a photo of the log to prove otherwise). There were PLENTY of factors to take into consideration before I executed my plan. Furthermore, I did not need to be smart-mouthed from the get go by this user in question. That was rude, inconsiderate, and unsportsman like in my book. If he honestly coundnt find it, DNF it and look another time, dont waste my time running out there in the dark and rain with a flashlight because I was worried my log was floating. Several of his recent posts were claimed as wet logs with the same scenerio.

There is just too much to consider a thought on this one and Geocaching will be the judge of the ignorant posts and emails that I received after explanation.

I have 6 children, I dont have time to teach manners to a 7th. :P I feel what I did was appropriate.

Edited by LingHoney
Link to comment

I don't like fake finds because like one particular cache I have yet to locate, has not only multiple DNF's from me, but others as well. Then presto, a newbie with 8 finds miraculously finds it, then followed by more DNF's. Did this newbie really find it, or did they feel they looked hard enough to get the smilie? Either way, it makes people think they caches really is there so they drive out there again to find this "supposed" cache. I would love to find this cache, not only to finally check it off, but to see if said newbie really did find and sign the log. Lies do put others out.

Link to comment

I shouldn't have looked at the page.

 

I have a word for people who make a big deal over presumed "faked logs".

 

Now the way the guidelines are written, geocache owners are told to delete any log that appears to be bogus, counterfeit, off-topic, or otherwise inappropriate. The game depends on cache finders being able to rely to some degree on the logs of previous cachers. Someone sitting at home writing couch potato logs can, according to briansnat, result in someone wasting their time or gasoline looking for a cache they might have skipped because it is likely missing. And false logs might make a cache owner decide to skip a needed maintenance visit. So cache owners are told to take responsibility for the quality control of all posts to the cache page. This give them the ability to delete logs. It is not an ability to be taken lightly.

 

Some people will find an unsigned log with or without a bogus sounding log and immediately accuse the poster of cheating. Cheating logs however are very rare. More likely you will see an error. Perhaps the wrong cache was logged or the finder confused two different caches that day. Sometimes, the finder truly was unable to sign the log for some reason. My feeling is that this is a fun game and being a stickler about signing a log is not in the spirit of the game. If someone gives a reasonable excuse you should accept it.

 

Now, if you have someone sitting at home logging finds on caches with "Didn't sign because the log is wet" over and over again, then the logs would appear to be bogus, and should be deleted. But if someone was out finding caches in the area and it seems they signed the log on every cache but yours, I wouldn't make a big deal. In your case, it appears the log was bogus. When you checked the cache the log was dry and finder's signature was missing. Per the guidelines you are in your rights to delete the log. But it could be the finder confused your cache with another they found that day. Perhaps the didn't even look for yours but got it confused with another cache nearby. It seems a bit of a jump to accuse someone of cheating unless you can show a pattern in their logging. When you accuse someone of cheating, you can expect them to call you a git and say you have slander their name.

 

What I object to is the guideline you used in your note. The rights and duties for a cache owner to delete bogus logs come from the maintenance section of the guidelines, not the section on logging physical caches. The section you quote is actually meant to prevent cache owners from deleting logs where the physical log has been signed; it is not a statement saying that the physical log must be signed in order to log a find. This section was added a couple of years ago when Groundspeak decided to end the practice some cache owners had of putting additional requirements for logging finds online. They would have caches that said thing like "In order to log a find, post a picture of yourself standing on your head at the cache site". These caches were popular, but annoyed many cachers who were simply interested in finding caches and not taking silly pictures. Groundspeak eventually decided to end the ability of cache owners to delete logs for failing to meet an additional requirement. The still wanted cache owners to delete bogus logs. If the physical log is sign, the online log can be assumed to be not bogus and therefor it should not be deleted. If there is no signature in the physical log, it is left up to the cache owner to determine if the find was bogus or not.

 

It is actually in section 3.1, which is under section 3. Logging Guidelines: to log a find online

 

When Groundspeak redid the guidelines this last time, they purposely put that section in. You repeatedly try to say that it doesn't mean what it does and try to give a history lesson. Groundspeak made a concious decision to add this section, and word it the way they did. It wasn't just an unfortunate revamp of the ALR as you say. Possibly, when they first put in the ALR, but not after this last guideline revamp.

Link to comment

All in all people, his 3rd log is left on my page waiting for a review. Im sitting back at this point. Apparently people who enjoy emailing me WITHOUT having their facts in order first, have a great deal of more time on their hands than I do.

Im here for the sport.

I simply posted here on the forum to get advice from fellow cachers not start a "he said, she said" war.

What I did was not out of hatred or demise. I play by the rules and only expect the same respect of others. When I email you to ask you if something was in error I DO NOT need treated like I am an idiot and talked down to. I will not stand for it. So he can call me a "git" or whatever fancy scholar words he wants to pry out of the urban jungle but the facts remain and I, as the CO pulled the final curtain....case closed. :)

Link to comment

 

It is actually in section 3.1, which is under section 3. Logging Guidelines: to log a find online

 

When Groundspeak redid the guidelines this last time, they purposely put that section in. You repeatedly try to say that it doesn't mean what it does and try to give a history lesson. Groundspeak made a concious decision to add this section, and word it the way they did. It wasn't just an unfortunate revamp of the ALR as you say. Possibly, when they first put in the ALR, but not after this last guideline revamp.

 

In my opinion it is unfortunate that Groundspeak choose the wording they did when the changed the rule regarding additional logging requirements. I complained at the time but was told by Groundspeak lackeys and by volunteer reviewers who were involved in developing the new guideline, not to read too much into it. It simply meant the ALRs were no longer allowed. After the latest reorganization of the guidelines, I complained again and got much the same responds from Groundspeak and the reviewers - stop reading more into the change than is there.

 

The real tragedy is that a few puritans have decide this guideline change means that signing the log is a requirement for logging a find, just as I predicted they would. It seems there is nothing I, or Groundspeak, can do to change their mind. In fact any change will be parsed and attempted to be used to justify the puritan view. I've given up trying to convince the puritans. I only continue to point out what the guidelines actually say and the reasons they were written in the first place in the hopes that others will see this and not be duped by the fallacious puritan arguments.

 

The OP had an issue here where a log appeared to be bogus. In fact in the OP it isn't even mention that the log wasn't signed. Instead the issue is that the finder reported a wet log when the log in the cache was in fact dry. It seems the OP tried to get a explanation from the logger that may have verified that the cache was found. But the logger couldn't come up with one. My guess is that the logger is confused that people even waste time deleting bogus logs. It may have never occurred to them that a log can be deleted. It's important that both cache owners who delete logs and finders who get their logs deleted understand the guidelines that allow the cache owner to delete logs. If you find a cache and can't provide some indication that you actually found it, it won't help to call the cache owner a name when she deletes your log. Frankly, I think the OP will be supported by Groundspeak in this case. Of course, the Groundspeak lackey may wonder why not just post a user maintenance stating the log was dry and leave it at that.

 

I find the whole concept that the find count is a score and that cache owners have been made some sort of referee to take away "points" that don't meet the puritan definition of a find, a bit too much for an activity that is just supposed to be fun. If someone is faking finds and logging couch potato logs, they will eventually get bored and realize that it is more fun to actually go and find caches. If they are logging finds with a silly excuse for not signing because they don't want to log DNFs, then the rest of us can point at them and laugh behind their backs. In fact, I'd probably let the log stand with a note pointing out what the logger did, rather than start a silly fight by deleting a log that has no effect on whether others can enjoy my cache. But that's just me.

Link to comment

So he can call me a "git" or whatever fancy scholar words he wants

 

Not really very scholarly... just foppish and perhaps pedantic.

The only time I've ever heard the word out loud in the USA is when I put The White Album on and listen to "I'm So Tired"

 

I'm so tired, I'm feeling so upset

Although I'm so tired, I'll have another cigarette

And curse Sir Walter Raleigh

He was such a stupid get

 

"get" being the Scottish version of git.

 

Anyways... I disagree with those who think you should have just left it alone. If you influence this guy to quit the game I say, "Bully!" and "Good on ya'" and "Don't let the door..."

well, you get the idea!

Link to comment

All in all people, his 3rd log is left on my page waiting for a review. Im sitting back at this point. Apparently people who enjoy emailing me WITHOUT having their facts in order first, have a great deal of more time on their hands than I do.

Im here for the sport.

I simply posted here on the forum to get advice from fellow cachers not start a "he said, she said" war.

What I did was not out of hatred or demise. I play by the rules and only expect the same respect of others. When I email you to ask you if something was in error I DO NOT need treated like I am an idiot and talked down to. I will not stand for it. So he can call me a "git" or whatever fancy scholar words he wants to pry out of the urban jungle but the facts remain and I, as the CO pulled the final curtain....case closed. :)

 

You did right. It's a shame that some people are giving you grief over it. I'm sure that if the "finder" in question told you that he happened to forget his pen and was able to tell you a little about the cache then you would have let his log stand.

 

But the facts are that he inaccurately described the condition of your cache and did not sign the log book. He is either a liar or he mistook your cache for another one. Since you've pointed out the facts and he still protesting ("The lady doth protest too much, methinks"), my suspicion would certainly lean toward the former.

 

I know if I thought I found a cache and a cache owner pointed out that my sig was not in the logbook and that I was wrong with my description my reaction would be "Oops, sorry, my bad" and I would not need to have my log deleted because I would delete it. I think all honest geocachers would react the same way.

 

In the end it's a matter of whether or not you want to stick to your guns over this. You could allow the bogus log and end the acrimony. You'll know the "finder" was a fraud. He'll know that he was caught.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

Good for you, LingHoney. You're doin' it right.

 

This person had no right to attack you and showed even less maturity and class by posting a note about you on his disabled cache page. What a dirty, underhanded trick.

 

Seems that he should be taken out back of the woodshed by Groundspeak.

Link to comment

....I find the whole concept that the find count is a score and that cache owners have been made some sort of referee to take away "points" that don't meet the puritan definition of a find, a bit too much for an activity that is just supposed to be fun. ...

I find this to be a silly argument from somebody that has in the past adamently argued that any cache owner has the right to award extra smilies for alternate reality "finds".

 

You know as well as I and do that signing the physical log is expected before logging online. Not doing so may well be an error that can be explained with a photo or description of the cache. But in most cases - just is a requirement of a find.

 

She needs to stick to her guns.

Link to comment

....I find the whole concept that the find count is a score and that cache owners have been made some sort of referee to take away "points" that don't meet the puritan definition of a find, a bit too much for an activity that is just supposed to be fun. ...

I find this to be a silly argument from somebody that has in the past adamently argued that any cache owner has the right to award extra smilies for alternate reality "finds".

 

You know as well as I and do that signing the physical log is expected before logging online. Not doing so may well be an error that can be explained with a photo or description of the cache. But in most cases - just is a requirement of a find.

 

She needs to stick to her guns.

 

OMG!! I had no idea that "P" card had been played!! I guess I'll have to at least start scanning Toz' posts.

 

Sorry, LingHoney (what is "Ling Honey" anyway?) but see my signature for an explaination.

Link to comment

....I find the whole concept that the find count is a score and that cache owners have been made some sort of referee to take away "points" that don't meet the puritan definition of a find, a bit too much for an activity that is just supposed to be fun. ...

I find this to be a silly argument from somebody that has in the past adamently argued that any cache owner has the right to award extra smilies for alternate reality "finds".

 

You know as well as I and do that signing the physical log is expected before logging online. Not doing so may well be an error that can be explained with a photo or description of the cache. But in most cases - just is a requirement of a find.

 

She needs to stick to her guns.

I think awarding extra smileys is silly. What I have probably said before is that cache owners who do this, don't effect the play of the many cachers like you and me who will only log a find if we found the cache. If some cache owner wants to have a cache page full of extra Found It logs because people posted pictures of themselves in yoga poses at the cache site it doesn't really effect me. (Of course if the cache is missing and people are posting finds for what you call an alternate reality find you might argue that someone will waste gas looking for a cache that isn't there. But usually these extra finds are posted along with a legitimate find.

 

And I'm not saying that the OP can't delete what appears to her to be a bogus log, especially if the logger was given a chance to explain and didn't have a satisfactory explanation. But it may have eliminated a lot of angst and a good deal of the name calling had she simply posted that she checked the log a it was dry and the finder name was not in it, but let the log stand anyhow. Worrying that the "score" is wrong because some non-finder is claiming a find is what I find silly. Delete logs if you're certain they are bogus (meaning the person didn't find the cache). While many geocachers routinely sign the log when they find a caches (and there are several good reasons for doing so), the reality is that the online find log has no relationship to whether you signed the physical log other that singing the log may be a good way to prove you found the cache (better than tossing in a gum wrapper with your initials on it).

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment

Did I miss something. Where is this note?

He had the log you posted back in post #47 as a note on his cache page, apparently so he could encrypt it before dumping it on you. It appears to have been deleted from his cache page.

 

Wow, and Im a "git", really?

Link to comment

Last week at work I received a "found it" log through my email notifications - although I was not happy to see the 2 dreaded words "LOG WET". Being my only true hidden cache ( I have 1 adopted one also ) I felt impelled to be the idiot who rushes out in the dark, in the rain to retreive my cache to check the problem. I got it in the car to realize that someone had apparently jammed a small hole into the container with the pen point - some of the swag was barely damp but it was in decent shape for sitting most the winter. What stoked me was the BONE DRY log! It was still double bagged and inserted into its own water tight canister safe and sound.

So my question is, why do people get involved with the sport just to be unsportsman like? I thought it was about the thrill of the hunt not the numbers!

I also emailed other cachers who had recently found my cache to enlighten me whether anything was wrong with cache and or contents and everyone of them said the log was completely dry.

I searched the individuals profile and saw more than just my cache that he simply stated "log wet", one cache of which I know has been missing for sometime.

So all i in all I do want to delete his log but do not want to cause conflict.

What to do what to do?

 

 

I do not understand why this was so offensive by some individuals. If it was about me, I would simply explain myself (like an adult) and cleared the matter up. Wow, sensitive people! :blink:

Link to comment

....I find the whole concept that the find count is a score and that cache owners have been made some sort of referee to take away "points" that don't meet the puritan definition of a find, a bit too much for an activity that is just supposed to be fun. ...

I find this to be a silly argument from somebody that has in the past adamently argued that any cache owner has the right to award extra smilies for alternate reality "finds".

 

You know as well as I and do that signing the physical log is expected before logging online. Not doing so may well be an error that can be explained with a photo or description of the cache. But in most cases - just is a requirement of a find.

 

She needs to stick to her guns.

 

OMG!! I had no idea that "P" card had been played!! I guess I'll have to at least start scanning Toz' posts.

 

Sorry, LingHoney (what is "Ling Honey" anyway?) but see my signature for an explaination.

 

LOL Took me a minute to process the "P" thing too. I dunno, this is just getting plain out crazy.I just seeked out simple advice and now the drama marches on. The OP did say I did not want to cause conflict but I guess some people take it all differently. Jeesh, its all so tiring!

And Ling Honey is a wild honey made from the Heather plant...When I did theater, it was my stage name. It just kind of stuck. People on the streets still see me and call out to me "Ling!" rather than my real name, Heatherlee.

Link to comment

I dunno, this is just getting plain out crazy.I just seeked out simple advice and now the drama marches on. The OP did say I did not want to cause conflict but I guess some people take it all differently. Jeesh, its all so tiring!

And Ling Honey is a wild honey made from the Heather plant...When I did theater, it was my stage name. It just kind of stuck. People on the streets still see me and call out to me "Ling!" rather than my real name, Heatherlee.

 

You are welcomed to use this, if you wish:

 

mban2429l.jpg

 

:lol:

Edited by knowschad
Link to comment

Now my big question is how can I block this jerk from emailing me, considering he is getting nasty now? Is there some TOS he is violating? He did re-log his find with an offensive statement about me deleting it but I also deleted that one. I do not doubt he will ride again! Like a dang cockroach...shew, go away!

 

 

LOG NOTE:

Apparently little miss perfect, the git who placed this cache has never made a mistake before about which cache had a damp log. Furthermore she has now decided to try to slander my good name. I would highly suggest others avoid any caches placed by her because they simply are not exciting enough to deal with her BS! Its people like this cache owner who make others quit the game.

 

EMAIL:

I do intend to take it up with geocaching.com because I signed the log, there was no snow that day in the area, it was pouring down rain, and no one has ever complained about me before so now you are posting slanderous remarks about me. As for not describing what your lame cache looked like you will one day understand that when you go out and get more than one a day that sometimes you don't bother to make a note about what all the insignificant crap caches look like. As a noob you are doing a piss poor job interacting with other cachers!

 

Wow obviously this guy doesnt understand the concept of guide lines? To me a family sport should not be portrayed by an armchair logger who stands in his profile photo with a beer in his hand *snort* :rolleyes:

 

If I ever do so many caches in a day that I can't seem to remember any details at all about them - Than I did too many. Time to find a more worthwhile pursuit.

 

Pu-lease.

Link to comment
You have to delete the log if his signature wasn't on your logsheet. Forget about conflict avoidance. Just delete it.
Cache owners are not required to delete online logs simply because the logsheet wasn't signed. In these cases, they are given wide lattitude to determine for themselves whether an online 'find' log is appropriate.

 

What's your point? She can have all the latitude she wants in the matter. She asked for advice about what she referred to as "fake finds", I gave it. I'm not interested in semantics, or "latitudes."

My mistake. When I read your comment that "You have to delete the log if his signature wasn't on your logsheet", I thought that you meant that she is required to delete the log, which is obviously incorrect. I didn't realize that when you told her that she 'had' to delete the log you actually meant that you thought that she should delete the log, even though she wasn't technically required to.
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...