Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 51
avroair

What Irks you most?

Recommended Posts

When I'm doing a walking/cycling maintenance run on my Fernleigh Track series I see bicycle inner tubes hanging in trees after a rider has fixed a flat. It irks me that they can't carry that real heavy inner tube as far as the neatest rubbish bin. The Track is usually very clean and respected by most users.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, colleda said:

When I'm doing a walking/cycling maintenance run on my Fernleigh Track series I see bicycle inner tubes hanging in trees after a rider has fixed a flat. It irks me that they can't carry that real heavy inner tube as far as the neatest rubbish bin. The Track is usually very clean and respected by most users.

That's terrible. Fortunately I have never seen that on one of the cycle tracks that wind through Canberra. Most of those who cycle here during work days would be commuters, although the families etc come out on weekends.

Locally, my favourite power trails are those on shared paths (cycle and walking routes.). Technically in Canberra we don't have cycle or walking paths; the paths are 'shared paths', and like most of Australia we can ride on the footpaths (shared paths). Only NSW and Victoria don't allow that.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, colleda said:

When I'm doing a walking/cycling maintenance run on my Fernleigh Track series I see bicycle inner tubes hanging in trees after a rider has fixed a flat. It irks me that they can't carry that real heavy inner tube as far as the neatest rubbish bin. The Track is usually very clean and respected by most users.

You're lucky, never seen a bike innertube but here you just see bags of dog s*** hanging in  the bushes and trees. If you're lucky.

 

Otherwise for some bizarre reason they bag it and then *leave it on the path*, creating a dog poo bomb if you walk or ride over it.

111u.jpg

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, BethDaddyKaty said:

You're lucky, never seen a bike innertube but here you just see bags of dog s*** hanging in  the bushes and trees. If you're lucky.

 

Otherwise for some bizarre reason they bag it and then *leave it on the path*, creating a dog poo bomb if you walk or ride over it.

111u.jpg

I've seen a lot of that, especially along canals. Muggles creating step-on hazards.

Share this post


Link to post
37 minutes ago, BethDaddyKaty said:

Otherwise for some bizarre reason they bag it and then *leave it on the path*, creating a dog poo bomb if you walk or ride over it.

 

Yeah, I really don't get that. Back when I was walking our dog, I would see these "dog poo bombs" next to the sidewalk. They would even use the cute special-purpose bags with paw prints (or some other pet-related design) on them. And then they'd clean up after their dog. And then they'd leave it there.

 

Why go to all that trouble, only to give up so close to the goal line?

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, BethDaddyKaty said:

You're lucky, never seen a bike innertube but here you just see bags of dog s*** hanging in  the bushes and trees. If you're lucky.

Otherwise for some bizarre reason they bag it and then *leave it on the path*, creating a dog poo bomb if you walk or ride over it.

 

Weird...  I said something about this just a couple months ago, and most acted like they've never seen this unhealthy behavior.    :huh:

 

I think most just pitch 'em here, and if it sticks on a bush, maybe a park employee will get it.   

Really surprised they keep opening here.  Most are county/township property near city implant's mcmansion developments.

One I stopped at for the last couple promotions had roads with small paths alongside.   Both were littered with poop.

 -  I walked in the grass in-between...    

 

Share this post


Link to post

Our bike path has doggy poop bag dispensers at each end but rarely do we see poop bags on the trail. But now and then we see doggy poop. Not too long ago I stepped in it when checking up on one of our caches. The cache is about 20 feet into the woods off the bike path. People think it's okay to let their dogs poop and leave it there because it's in the woods. Even I have been guilty of that when babysitting our daughter's dog. But that was before we became geocachers and hid caches. lol  

Share this post


Link to post
59 minutes ago, HunterandSamuel said:

The cache is about 20 feet into the woods off the bike path. People think it's okay to let their dogs poop and leave it there because it's in the woods.

In the last weeks I had a really "bad streak" of this :mad:. I stepped in off-the-path dog s**t four or five times. Which usually means a detour to the next small stream or lake instead of proceeding to the next cache. Definitely doesn't improve my general feelings towards dogs and their owners... :(

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

Weird...  I said something about this just a couple months ago, and most acted like they've never seen this unhealthy behavior.    :huh:


Too much of this in the UK I’m afraid.  Did a CITO a while ago, and the organisers, Surrey Wildlife Trust, had a (potted) tree in the car park ‘adorned’ with dog pooh bags to illustrate the problem. ☹️

Edited by IceColdUK
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, baer2006 said:

In the last weeks I had a really "bad streak" of this :mad:. I stepped in off-the-path dog s**t four or five times. Which usually means a detour to the next small stream or lake instead of proceeding to the next cache. Definitely doesn't improve my general feelings towards dogs and their owners... :(

 

I find a bit of grass to wipe it off.

Share this post


Link to post

Owner MaintenanceOwner Maintenance

(They replaced the missing cache)

Found itFound it

Didn't find itDidn't find it

Didn't find itDidn't find it

Didn't find itDidn't find it

Didn't find itDidn't find it

Irks me that someone logs a find, when they obviously didn't find the cache, and maybe even more so, that the CO hasn't deleted them.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
48 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

Owner MaintenanceOwner Maintenance

(They replaced the missing cache)

Found itFound it

Didn't find itDidn't find it

Didn't find itDidn't find it

Didn't find itDidn't find it

Didn't find itDidn't find it

Irks me that someone logs a find, when they obviously didn't find the cache, and maybe even more so, that the CO hasn't deleted them.

How would an owner verify a false log in the circumstances you describe?

 

Usual advice seems to be "check the log book", but that's gone.

 

DNFs don't prove the cache wasn't there.

 

The only point you can prove the cache wasn't there is if you check and even then TBH you cannot be sure. It might have been replaced in the wrong place, or tossed away by muggles. As a CO you are only likely to look in the place where you expect the cache should be, but a dedicated cacher may well search for 20 minutes, find it in the wrong place, replace it in the wrong place, without the CO being aware.

 

Same dilemma as when you find a cache that is *clearly* in the wrong place. You can try and replace it as per CO hints but if you get it wrong, CO may well think it is missing.

 

I know some on here seem to support interrogation if there is a suspected false log. Personally, I have better things to do with my time than correct one find. If someone posts an obviously false log then fine. If not, the benefit of the doubt should go to the finder, in line with HQ guidelines to delete "false" logs, not logs that you can't verify to be true.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Goldenwattle said:

Owner MaintenanceOwner Maintenance

(They replaced the missing cache)

Found itFound it

Didn't find itDidn't find it

Didn't find itDidn't find it

Didn't find itDidn't find it

Didn't find itDidn't find it

Irks me that someone logs a find, when they obviously didn't find the cache, and maybe even more so, that the CO hasn't deleted them.

 

What does the content of the found log say? It could be just another example of the default log types on the "new" logging page resulting in the wrong log type; I've seen this a few times on my own hides when the log content makes it clear it was meant to be a DNF.

Share this post


Link to post
39 minutes ago, BethDaddyKaty said:

How would an owner verify a false log in the circumstances you describe?

 

Usual advice seems to be "check the log book", but that's gone.

 

DNFs don't prove the cache wasn't there.

 

The only point you can prove the cache wasn't there is if you check and even then TBH you cannot be sure. It might have been replaced in the wrong place, or tossed away by muggles. As a CO you are only likely to look in the place where you expect the cache should be, but a dedicated cacher may well search for 20 minutes, find it in the wrong place, replace it in the wrong place, without the CO being aware.

 

Same dilemma as when you find a cache that is *clearly* in the wrong place. You can try and replace it as per CO hints but if you get it wrong, CO may well think it is missing.

 

I know some on here seem to support interrogation if there is a suspected false log. Personally, I have better things to do with my time than correct one find. If someone posts an obviously false log then fine. If not, the benefit of the doubt should go to the finder, in line with HQ guidelines to delete "false" logs, not logs that you can't verify to be true.

Easy to verify if the find was a find. I do this often (as all responsible COs should do) when I suspect a DNF. I contact the person who claimed a find and ask them to please supply proof in the form of a photograph or  a very good description. Most never reply, which indicates to me they didn't find it and I delete. Most I delete never gets a reply either, further reinforcing my believe they didn't find it. Anyone who can supply proof or a very good description I allow to stay.

In this example I gave, I was one of the DNFs and the cache was magnetised to a very specific object with a spoiler photograph, with no other similar object nearby. I believe they didn't find it.

  • Upvote 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

What does the content of the found log say?

A very informative and descriptive log; for a phone log anyway.

 

Found itFound it

👍🏻

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

Easy to verify if the find was a find. I do this often (as all responsible COs should do) when I suspect a DNF. I contact the person who claimed a find and ask them to please supply proof in the form of a photograph or  a very good description. Most never reply, which indicates to me they didn't find it and I delete. Most I delete never gets a reply either, further reinforcing my believe they didn't find it. Anyone who can supply proof or a very good description I allow to stay.

In this example I gave, I was one of the DNFs and the cache was magnetised to a very specific object with a spoiler photograph, with no other similar object nearby. I believe they didn't find it.

There is no link between being a responsible cache owner and messaging people to verify finds.

 

GC guidelines say to delete false or inappropriate logs. Not to referee or investigate. Delete ones you know to be false.

 

Personally I want to own caches and maintain them. I have zero interest in joining the cache police and to claim that I'm "irresponsible" for not doing so is frankly ridiculous.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

A very informative and descriptive log; for a phone log anyway.

 

Found itFound it

👍🏻

 

There was a cacher here who only ever put this in her online logs:

 

image.png.94fa86c7a4b188361b44a3fa9edb63b8.png

 

The first time I saw it I went and checked the cache but everything was legit. What's funnier is she'd even draw that clenched fist or whatever it's supposed to be in the logbook.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, BethDaddyKaty said:

GC guidelines say to delete false or inappropriate logs. Not to referee or investigate. Delete ones you know to be false.

I find it polite to ask them first, even if I 100% believe their log to be false. What's "referee or investigate" to do with being polite? Not refereeing or investigating.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:
11 minutes ago, BethDaddyKaty said:

GC guidelines say to delete false or inappropriate logs. Not to referee or investigate. Delete ones you know to be false.

I find it polite to ask them first, even if I 100% believe their log to be false. What's "referee or investigate" to do with being polite? Not refereeing or investigating.

 

When you delete an inappropriate photo from a log, you're prompted for a reason which is forwarded to the logger, but the same doesn't happen when you delete a whole log. All the logger gets is a terse notification that their log has been deleted. That's almost guaranteed to raise some bristles.

 

On the few occasions when I've had a suspect log, I've politely explained the situation to the logger and asked them if they can offer some clarification. Most times they can, or they change their log to the DNF they'd meant to log or they delete it themselves (that's happened a couple of times when the logger of my EC couldn't answer any of the questions).

 

It gets a bit more complicated now with challenge caches if the logger has opted out of allowing third parties access through the API. In such a case, the CO can't check their qualification with the checker so has to either give the logger the benefit of the doubt or ask them to voluntarily provide evidence of their qualification (the guidelines don't allow us to compel them to do that on post-moratorium challenges).

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

I find it polite to ask them first, even if I 100% believe their log to be false. What's "referee or investigate" to do with being polite? Not refereeing or investigating.

You're suggesting there is a requirement to message people in the first place if you're "responsible".

 

I take logs at face value unless I'm certain they're incorrect, which I don't need to message for 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, BethDaddyKaty said:

You're suggesting there is a requirement to message people in the first place if you're "responsible".

 

I take logs at face value unless I'm certain they're incorrect, which I don't need to message for 

Then how do you determine they are incorrect?

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, BethDaddyKaty said:

You're suggesting there is a requirement to message people in the first place if you're "responsible".

 

I take logs at face value unless I'm certain they're incorrect, which I don't need to message for 

I would find that rude, and we all can make mistakes. And fortunately I did message someone first, as I missed realising a scrawl was a signature. It would have been embarrassing to delete it without cause.

It is also nice to give someone the change to change their log to a DNF, or remove the offending log or photograph, because everyone can make mistakes. They might have meant to make a DNF for instance, but accidentally logged a find. Once you point out the mistake they have the opportunity to change it. That's what happened with the most recent person I contacted. A beginner and I felt it was a beginner mistake. I explained the situation and they changed their log to DNF. Otherwise, we could get up someone's nose big time.

I had a photograph removed once, but all the CO had to do is point out my mistake, I would have embarrassingly apologised and I would have removed it (quickly). I am very careful not to show TBs' numbers, but for some reason this one sneaked past me and the TB's number was visible. That CO certainly got up my nose by deleting it without messaging me. Do you want to have this effect on people?

 

 

Edited by Goldenwattle
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

I would find that rude, and we all can make mistakes.

<...>

It is also nice to give someone the change to change their log to a DNF, or remove the offending log or photograph, because everyone can make mistakes.

<...>

I had a photograph removed once, but all the CO had to do is point out my mistake, I would have embarrassingly apologised and I would have removed it (quickly). I am very careful not to show TBs' numbers, but for some reason this one sneaked past me and the TB's number was visible. That CO certainly got up my nose by deleting it without messaging me. Do you want to have this effect on people?

 

 

Regarding spoilers, I'm with you ALMOST all the way.

 

If I get a spoiler photo or log, I'll delete it and at the same time send a note apologizing for the deletion. I'll strongly encourage them to re-log, but explain that I'm worried about people who would see their photo or log before they could 'fix' it.

 

If you just send a note and the finder removes the spoiler in a reasonably short period of time, say a day or two, then you still have a day or two of people being shown the 'secret'. If you get someone who doesn't respond or takes their sweet time to get to it, then you're allowing that person to fundamentally redesign your hide. I care about that, you might not.

 

I've only had to delete a few times, maybe two or three, and in all instances the finder re-logged. No problem. One of them took a long time.

 

So, yes, I agree that a deletion without a chance to fix may be considered rude, but sometimes it may be warranted by the consequences of politeness. Just make sure to acknowledge the rudeness in the interest of civility and respect, and apologize.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

I never check signatures on my logs against logs online. I trust geocachers since the game is based on the honor system but if one slips through and wants to lie about finding caches...they won't last long in the game anyway because they will get bored and disappear.

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, colleda said:

Then how do you determine they are incorrect?

I don't.

 

If they log it, I assume it's correct unless there was something in the log which meant the cacher was clearly mistaken.

 

I have no desire to "determine" any logs to the point of messaging someone. As @HunterandSamuel says, I trust geocachers to be honest because they have nothing to gain and are only cheating themselves.

 

I disagree with your statement that takings logs on trust makes me an irresponsible cache owner.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, BethDaddyKaty said:

I disagree with your statement that takings logs on trust makes me an irresponsible cache owner.

Where did I ever say that??????????

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, colleda said:

Where did I ever say that??????????

"Easy to verify if the find was a find. I do this often (as all responsible COs should do) when I suspect a DNF. I contact the person who claimed a find and ask them to please supply proof in the form of a photograph or  a very good description."

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, BethDaddyKaty said:

"Easy to verify if the find was a find. I do this often (as all responsible COs should do) when I suspect a DNF. I contact the person who claimed a find and ask them to please supply proof in the form of a photograph or  a very good description."

That is not my post!!

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, colleda said:

That is not my post!!

Ah sorry, getting confused between posters. On loads of codeine at the moment for an infection which makes linking conversations more difficult than normal :)

 

That was my objection, not that people choose to message and verify posts, but that those who claim people who don't are irresponsible.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Geocache ownership has the responsibility of not only maintaining a geocache but also the maintenance of their listing including what's being logged. False or fake logs can give a false indication of the status of a cache which can mislead and, at times, frustrate potential seekers.

  • Upvote 3
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, BethDaddyKaty said:

Ah sorry, getting confused between posters. On loads of codeine at the moment for an infection which makes linking conversations more difficult than normal :)

Hope you get well soon. I can sympathise as I had an infected haematoma of my ankle back in April and it still gives me grief due to some nerve damage and a recurrence of rheumatoid arthritis. From past experience I try to resist taking pain killers.

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, colleda said:

Geocache ownership has the responsibility of not only maintaining a geocache but also the maintenance of their listing including what's being logged. False or fake logs can give a false indication of the status of a cache which can mislead and, at times, frustrate potential seekers.

Yes, but

 

- It isn't a big problem.

 

- The worst consequence is someone may spend longer searching for a cache because of a false find log.

 

- It's not the CO's responsibility to fix GS's failure to introduce some sort of reputation system for cachers, as is used on pretty much every comparable game/social network. The CO's responsibilities are clear, they have to remove knowingly false logs. There isn't any requirement to verify logs. As such, responsible COs may message and verify logs, or they may not. Neither affects whether you are responsible.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, colleda said:

Hope you get well soon. I can sympathise as I had an infected haematoma of my ankle back in April and it still gives me grief due to some nerve damage and a recurrence of rheumatoid arthritis. From past experience I try to resist taking pain killers.

Thanks :) yep, chronic pain is always a risk. Honestly, I try to avoid painkillers but this was the most painful thing I've ever had in my life, and that includes being run over by a drink driver travelling at 40mph and smashing my wrist into hundreds of pieces (although that was painful too!).

 

Does make you appreciate how lucky we are to have modern medical care. Hope your ankle is fully mended soon :)

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

 

Regarding spoilers, I'm with you ALMOST all the way.

 

If I get a spoiler photo or log, I'll delete it and at the same time send a note apologizing for the deletion. I'll strongly encourage them to re-log, but explain that I'm worried about people who would see their photo or log before they could 'fix' it.

 

If you just send a note and the finder removes the spoiler in a reasonably short period of time, say a day or two, then you still have a day or two of people being shown the 'secret'. If you get someone who doesn't respond or takes their sweet time to get to it, then you're allowing that person to fundamentally redesign your hide. I care about that, you might not.

 

I've only had to delete a few times, maybe two or three, and in all instances the finder re-logged. No problem. One of them took a long time.

 

So, yes, I agree that a deletion without a chance to fix may be considered rude, but sometimes it may be warranted by the consequences of politeness. Just make sure to acknowledge the rudeness in the interest of civility and respect, and apologize.

At least you send a message. This person didn't. It wasn't a spoiler for their cache though in the example I mentioned. From memory it was showing my after caching iced coffee with a cafe view behind. I had sat several TBs next to my coffee on the table, and accidentally showed one of the TB numbers. (Although how I missed this this I don't know, as I check TB photographs and delete any numbers showing.) The cache owner deleted this without messaging me. It was the without messaging me part that annoyed me.

Another time I was politely asked to remove a photograph of the cache I had displayed in my DNF to show I had found it. I had not been able to open the lid as it had become stuck. The owner apologised I couldn't open the cache and asked me please to log the find, as they said not being able to open the cache was not part of the game and also to remove the photograph as they thought it was a spoiled. I did both.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, HunterandSamuel said:

I never check signatures on my logs against logs online. I trust geocachers since the game is based on the honor system but if one slips through and wants to lie about finding caches...they won't last long in the game anyway because they will get bored and disappear.

And some of these armchair loggers will keep logging become of COs like you. That gets frustrating for COs who do take their responsibilities seriously. We had one armchair logger like that. They wrote VERY realistic, descriptive logs and only ceased their activity when some COs starting deleting their logs. They even published an armchair cache and did armchair maintenance when people couldn't find their imaginary cache. It can be an indication of who is not maintaining their caches, by who doesn't delete false logs.

Edited by Goldenwattle
  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, HunterandSamuel said:

I never check signatures on my logs against logs online. I trust geocachers since the game is based on the honor system but if one slips through and wants to lie about finding caches...they won't last long in the game anyway because they will get bored and disappear.

That's part of the problem - trust.  A fake found log tells others the cache is in play, when it isn't (I know, not all fake logs are on missing caches).  A few years ago, in a thread about this subject, somebody saw a find log on a cache that was high wanted (I don't recall exactly why, but this was when caches were a lot fewer) and drove quite a ways to get there, spent a long searching and drove home with a DNF.  Later they found out the cache was missing and the Find log was fake, do you blame them for being upset? 

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, HunterandSamuel said:

I never check signatures on my logs against logs online. I trust geocachers since the game is based on the honor system but if one slips through and wants to lie about finding caches...they won't last long in the game anyway because they will get bored and disappear.

 

A while back I received this log on one of my caches (edited slightly to protect the embarassed):

 

Quote

Our daughter XXXXX, visits Australia. I sent her some caches as GE-picture, because she told me, the GPS on her smartphone didn't work. OK, so prepared she went to wonderful XXXXX and found that cache. Really! Well done, daughter! TFTC and greetings from Germany

 

This had me scratching my head as the satellite image of that cache's GZ looks like this:

 

image.png.c753ed5c3af76e9fc721f11698a17072.png

 

Given the way that cache is hidden, there's really no way she could have found it just from the satellite image as there are no features identifiable from the ground that would get you close - from the walking track visible to the left of the cache, all you can see are trees and undergrowth. But just to be sure I went out to check and, sure enough, there was no signature in the log. So I sent a message, explaining all this and wondering if perhaps she'd logged the wrong cache. It turned out that there was a misunderstanding between daughter in Oz and parents back in Germany doing the logging, and there was one cache she found just from the satellite image (that one would be quite easy to do that way as the rock it's under is clearly visible and easily recognised on the ground) but she abandoned her attempt at this one.

 

Most of the time it's not dishonesty that leads to logging errors but simple honest mistakes (or that dadgum default log type on the website that logs everything as a find or an OM unless you remember to change it), which everyone benefits from having corrected. It usually doesn't take much effort on the part of the CO to set things right.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

A geoacher reputation system can be considered to be already in place. Other people who see how a cacher cares for their caches or sees how another cacher logs finds or places throwdowns are all a part of their reputation - including what they say in the forums.

Favorite Points are a way to judge caches. 

GS shouldn't attempt to implement some sort of rating system for its members.

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

And some of these armchair loggers will keep logging become of COs like you.

 

LOL I doubt very much I'll be responsible for fake loggers to keep on logging on your logs. I don't know where you live, sounds like you have a lot of dishonest cachers. I'm thankful I have never had a suspicious log on any of my caches that sent up red flags. But then again...I'm not suspicious of people who find my caches. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, The Jester said:

That's part of the problem - trust.  A fake found log tells others the cache is in play, when it isn't

 

Not a problem at all for me. I check and maintain all my caches weekly so even a fake log will not mislead others that a cache is in play...it will be in play.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Most of the time it's not dishonesty that leads to logging errors but simple honest mistakes

 

Thankfully no log ever made me scratch my head, like in your case. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
35 minutes ago, HunterandSamuel said:

 

LOL I doubt very much I'll be responsible for fake loggers to keep on logging on your logs. I don't know where you live, sounds like you have a lot of dishonest cachers. I'm thankful I have never had a suspicious log on any of my caches that sent up red flags. But then again...I'm not suspicious of people who find my caches. 

Do you check the physical log and compare it to the online log?

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Goldenwattle said:

Do you check the physical log and compare it to the online log?

 

Nope. Never had a need to. Is that a violation? 

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, HunterandSamuel said:

 

Nope. Never had a need to. Is that a violation? 

Then you don't know how many false logs you have had. Some armchair loggers write very realistic logs. Here are some example of real armchair logs. Not only TFTC.

"today we wanted to try and do multicaches close to home
a lot of fun in the sun with pete lots of walking and driving
we found a few multicaches which was really fun
hopefully i will hide some soon
thanks
"

"with the school holidays starting again we wanted to get into geocaching again
today we went out and started finding caches close to home in Farrer
thanks for the hides it was good fun to get back into it
"

" we wanted to try a diferent icon. it was really hard to figure it out but then it made cents so we went along the track and found it thanks "

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

Then you don't know how many false logs you have had.

 

Maybe, maybe not. I'm not paranoid or suspicious of cachers who find our caches. Never had a reason to be. 

Share this post


Link to post
56 minutes ago, HunterandSamuel said:

 

LOL I doubt very much I'll be responsible for fake loggers to keep on logging on your logs. I don't know where you live, sounds like you have a lot of dishonest cachers. I'm thankful I have never had a suspicious log on any of my caches that sent up red flags. But then again...I'm not suspicious of people who find my caches. 

 

You'd be surprised how many fake logs there are. You started in 2018 and have less than 300 finds which means you have seen less than many here who are caching 10+ years and many more finds.

When readings logs, which we do preparing for a cacheday, we sometimes see logs like "after contacting the CO we were allowed to log as the cache is gone" = fake log, we've logged caches as DNF where we found the fixture of the cache but no container. Later we find others logging a found it on the remnants of the cache.

One of the most surprising fake logs was on an old virtual in New Zealand which we logged (take picture) and were 50m away is an easy traditional. I noticed a familiar name in the logs (Belgian cacher) so I looked up his profile (planning to contract him about the trip) and saw the virtual was his only NZ find. A reverse lookup of his posted picture quickly showed he had just copied it from a website thus "proving" he was there (he was not in the photograph nor was a GPS).

I've also seen logs where people find a bunch of caches listing all finds of the day in their log where the multi's will keep you busy for most of the day let alone you can do 10's of them (unless just going from final to final with given coordinates).

 

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, on4bam said:

You started in 2018 and have less than 300 finds which means you have seen less than many here who are caching 10+ years and many more finds.

 

That could be why you all have found fake logs and I haven't. I'm sure after 10 years of caching I might have found a few that sends off red flags. If so, I'll put on my dark sunglasses & detective trench coat and begin a thorough investigation. :cool: If I find they were indeed fake, I'll follow GS guidelines and delete them. But nowhere in guidelines does it say I must compare every single online log to the caches paper logs. 

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, colleda said:

False or fake logs can give a false indication of the status of a cache which can mislead and, at times, frustrate potential seekers.

 

Obviously this is true, but the only way to prevent it from happening is for the CO to immediately message every finder requesting 'proof', or for the CO to visit the cache after every find to check the log.  Imho, life's too short.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, HunterandSamuel said:

 If so, I'll put on my dark sunglasses & detective trench coat and begin a thorough investigation.

You won't need to "investigate" many stick out as a sour thumb. Just look at the Found it, didn't find it thread.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, on4bam said:

I've also seen logs where people find a bunch of caches listing all finds of the day in their log where the multi's will keep you busy for most of the day let alone you can do 10's of them

LOL, there was an armchair logger here caught out who said they thought they would find a multi that afternoon. Boy did that multi catch them out, as it was a long distance multi. requiring a drive Canberra to Melbourne - at least 700kms - then an overnight ferry ride to Tasmania, and then drive to Hobart. All this they said they did in an afternoon.

This cache: GC2TR90

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 51

×
×
  • Create New...