Fotologging

[+-CJ-]

Will never photolog.

 

If asked, won't allow photologs at my geocaches. Including those situations when a log is missing or unreadable/unwriteable.

 

Why? Just for the same reason. If a log is missing, one doesn't sign it and leaves a photolog, the second one is doing the same, etc. - telling that the CO should do maintenance. I should. But you should not photolog. Because it's a part of the game. You might be very experienced geocacher but not necessarily people who will come after you have the same experience. They may easily think that photologging is OK every time one faces any problem. The next step after "the logbook is missing" is "I spotted the cache but decided not to grab it because there were muggles almost at the GZ". Then "I saw it on the tree but didn't climb because ...". It's easy. Just give a start.

 

If a logbook is missing or has turned (as it was said) into pulp, put a new logbook inside, sign it and log this cache as found without any hesitations.

[+Tassie_Boy]

Why does it matter if you called the co or not, you've been there but you still haven't found a thing.

Out of that whole, long winded post, that's the only thing you question?

Seriously though, for some folks in here, it matters. You'll see the occasional comment in here regarding similar behavior, where someone hunts for a cache, doesn't find it, posts a DNF, and the owner, verifying it was missing, offers to let the seeker log it as a find. I've received many such offers over the years. Personally, as previously noted, I don't consider my efforts to equal a find until my signature is in the logbook. But the replies I've read in here following similar comments indicates that not all of us feel that way.

 

With BillyBob's consent, I post the [...] 'Found It' log...

 

...my log is an accurate account of my experience, and clearly points out the fact that I did not find it. ...but I can't see that it harms the integrity of the cache.

 

It does because it encourages others to post false finds, especially when people new to the game see that a highly experienced player does it and a cache owner is complicit.

 

But if the owner is complicit to what most would agree are cheesy logging practices, or, if the owner is MIA and no longer doing anything about the logs on their caches, the integrity, such as it is, has already been lost. At that point, even a "Greetings From Germany!" log would cause no further harm.

 

Meh, Posting over breakfast on the phone, that's the main issue, logging found it logs and clearly saying that they didn't in fact find it.

[4wheelin_fool]

But if the owner is complicit to what most would agree are cheesy logging practices, or, if the owner is MIA and no longer doing anything about the logs on their caches, the integrity, such as it is, has already been lost. At that point, even a "Greetings From Germany!" log would cause no further harm.

 

Harm? Other than archival?

 

A cache is DNFed several times, but perhaps it there or not. Then someone assumes it's missing and posts a FOTOLOG. A few other people follow suit. Archival or disablement by the reviewer is whats possible. Otherwise the owner could be out of town and could have his buddy check on it and confirm or fix. Yes, they do archive for that. The next guy looks real hard and finds it buried in fresh mulch, goes back to log it and discovered it's archived because a few tourists felt entitled to a find.

[4wheelin_fool]

I could have, and should have posted a note, or a DNF but I didn't. This is just a game. What happened to we can all play this game differently? I just don't take this game as seriously as some and can live with the fact that I'm not playing it the same as everyone else.

 

My find count really doesn't matter to me...

 

We can certainly all play this game differently. Its as simple as using a GPS to find a container and signing the log. However, you did not find any container. That doesnt fall under the simple definition on how the game is played. GPS, container, and log are all basic elements that sometimes get ignored or twisted around. It doesnt matter if you did it once, dont care about your find count, or whether anyone else cares about it. The simple fact is taking a picture at ground zero is not geocaching. Even with virtuals and Earth caches it is required to find some tidbit of info and not simply take a picture.

 

I could go onto a golf course with a hockey stick and a tennis ball and declare I am golfing. Register at the front and drive around in a golf cart and pretend like it is so. However most people would probably say that I am not playing golf. Perhaps if others followed suit, it would seem legit, but it is clearly not.

 

Personally, I dont care if a few people do this. The majority does not do it, and most do not consider it a legit find. However, if you want to pretend that it is, people will dispute this time after time. You believe that it's not harming anyone similar to couch potato logs, but what happens when it gets archived? What happens when it gets popular and people expect it? They post a picture rather than a DNF and throw an entitled fit when it gets deleted.

Edited October 14, 2013 by 4wheelin_fool

[+Sagefox]

But if the owner is complicit [...] or, if the owner is MIA and no longer doing anything about the logs on their caches, the integrity, such as it is, has already been lost.

So then that makes it o.k. to encourage other cachers to do the same, spread it to other caches and have new cachers think it is the norm?

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I photologged one cache while in another country (Singapore) but I found a few other caches before that one cache. In that one case, out of my 1100 plus finds, the cache was all about the location and I would have taken several pictures from the location even if a cache had never been placed there. I can live with the fact that I didn't sign the log on one cache because my find count does not matter to me.

Then I don't understand why you would log it as found. Why not log a Note? That would be the appropriate log.

If I don't care and the cache owner doesn't care, why should anyone else?

This seems like a very weak justification for logging a false find.

I could have, and should have posted a note, or a DNF but I didn't. This is just a game. What happened to we can all play this game differently? I just don't take this game as seriously as some and can live with the fact that I'm not playing it the same as everyone else.

 

My find count really doesn't matter to me. That means that it doesn't matter to me if I count that cache as a find or if I don't. I think my find count is somewhere around 1165 (I'd have to check my profile). It really doesn't matter to me if it's actually 1164 or 1166.

Your find count might not really matter to you, but you seem to enjoy often mentioning your finds in foreign countries. If you log "Found Its" for caches you don't actually find, then that could make others wonder about the validity of your other "finds," including some of the ones in other countries.

 

In order to share experiences of your geocaching finds, there must be some basic, common understanding about what a "find" is.

 

Is there a common understanding about what a find is?

 

*I* know that I found at least one cache in every country and state shown on my statistics page. If someone else wants to think my other finds are in question based on the fact that I honestly declared that I didn't sign the log sheet on 1 of my 1100+ finds I'm fine with that.

 

 

[+CanadianRockies]

Your find count might not really matter to you, but you seem to enjoy often mentioning your finds in foreign countries. If you log "Found Its" for caches you don't actually find, then that could make others wonder about the validity of your other "finds," including some of the ones in other countries.

 

In order to share experiences of your geocaching finds, there must be some basic, common understanding about what a "find" is.

Is there a common understanding about what a find is?

Yes, I think there's a basic, common understanding about what a "find" is. I suspect the vast majority of geocachers agree you must at least see a traditional cache's container before you can claim to have found it. That seems pretty basic.

 

*I* know that I found at least one cache in every country and state shown on my statistics page. If someone else wants to think my other finds are in question based on the fact that I honestly declared that I didn't sign the log sheet on 1 of my 1100+ finds I'm fine with that.

But you also seem to want to share with other geocachers your "finds" in foreign countries. You've repeatedly done so in these forums. But if your definition of a traditional cache "find" is so broad that it includes simply taking a picture at Ground Zero rather than spotting a container, then you should understand how people might have difficulty comprehending your "finding" experiences.

 

As someone else pointed out, you can use a hockey stick to whack a tennis ball around a golf course, but if you call that "golfing," then don't be surprised if people in the clubhouse harbor some doubts when you tell them you "parred" the course.

Edited October 14, 2013 by CanadianRockies

[+tozainamboku]

With BillyBob's consent, I post the [...] 'Found It' log...

 

...my log is an accurate account of my experience, and clearly points out the fact that I did not find it. ...but I can't see that it harms the integrity of the cache.

 

It does because it encourages others to post false finds, especially when people new to the game see that a highly experienced player does it and a cache owner is complicit.

It depends on how that someone new to the game views the find count.

 

If they believe the find count is some sort of score in the game, they might see these logs as an indication that you can stretch the definition of a find in order to rack up a higher score. They can then decide whether or not the personally feel comfortable doing this or if they think a find log in this case is cheesy.

 

On the other hand, if they see geocaching as fun non-competive activity they may simply look a the find count as the number of online found it logs someone has posted. They know that they find it more enjoyable to log a found than a DNF. They may see these logs as an indication that you can, under certain conditions and with the owner's permission, use the find log when you didn't actually find the cache. If anything they may find it cheesy that geocachers who don't have a stake in this log spend so much energy calling these practices cheating.

 

Such a find log might qualify as cheesy,

 

It certainly qualifies for 'Found It = Didn't Find It'.

I enjoy reading that thread because I find it silly what trivial things can get some people to grab the torches and pitchforks.

Edited October 14, 2013 by tozainamboku

[+jellis]

Won't mention names but heard a recent report from a certain Mega event in Nevada that some cachers were doing the photologging and not signing. Why bother when there so many cachers in the area signing the logsheets who would look for the ones not signing? (someone did and they couldn't find their names) They figure "hey the photo proves I was there so who is going to prove I didn't sign it" To me photologging is no different then Virtuals and during these types of events there is nothing you can do about it. Too bad, so sad.

[4wheelin_fool]

Won't mention names but heard a recent report from a certain Mega event in Nevada that some cachers were doing the photologging and not signing. Why bother when there so many cachers in the area signing the logsheets who would look for the ones not signing? (someone did and they couldn't find their names) They figure "hey the photo proves I was there so who is going to prove I didn't sign it" To me photologging is no different then Virtuals and during these types of events there is nothing you can do about it. Too bad, so sad.

 

In these cases the cachers are doing no harm, because they are not stating what they are doing in their log and the cache is there. It is also unlikely that the practice will encourage others to do the same because nobody knows about it.

 

In the instance that the cache is not there and someone does it, it may fool someone else into thinking it is there if they dont read the logs.

 

The question is "Is it worse than a throwdown?" In the case of NYPaddleCacher, he could have very easily placed a similar, but improved container in a better spot nearby and declared that he found it but the log was full, so he added a new log and nobody would have known the difference. It would have added some life to it, as the person who hid it may actually live in Wisconsin or somewhere, placed it under their vacationing sock account, and would be grateful.

 

Which is worse? Openly lying by using the wrong log type, or lying about the circumstances and helping someone out? One keeps the cache listed and findable, and the other risks it getting archived.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Your find count might not really matter to you, but you seem to enjoy often mentioning your finds in foreign countries. If you log "Found Its" for caches you don't actually find, then that could make others wonder about the validity of your other "finds," including some of the ones in other countries.

 

In order to share experiences of your geocaching finds, there must be some basic, common understanding about what a "find" is.

Is there a common understanding about what a find is?

Yes, I think there's a basic, common understanding about what a "find" is. I suspect the vast majority of geocachers agree you must at least see a traditional cache's container before you can claim to have found it. That seems pretty basic.

 

I agree with you. However, I can come up with numerous examples to exemplify that while there may be a basic concept for a find there are a lot of other definitions of "finding a geocache" that are quite common.

 

Some people think that driving a vehicle down a highway while someone else jumps out and stamps a log sheet is a find.

Some people think that driving a vehicle down a highway while someone else jumps out and swaps a container is a find.

Some people think that watching someone else climb a tree and write their name on a log sheet is a find.

Some people that placing a cache entitles one to log it as a find.

 

The difference between those four examples (and I could mentioned several others) and what I did is that probably hundreds of thousands of finds have been logged using those practices. I posted a find on one cache that some might not consider it to be a find. Let put this in perspective.

 

 

 

*I* know that I found at least one cache in every country and state shown on my statistics page. If someone else wants to think my other finds are in question based on the fact that I honestly declared that I didn't sign the log sheet on 1 of my 1100+ finds I'm fine with that.

But you also seem to want to share with other geocachers your "finds" in foreign countries. You've repeatedly done so in these forums. But if your definition of a traditional cache "find" is so broad that it includes simply taking a picture at Ground Zero rather than spotting a container, then you should understand how people might have difficulty comprehending your "finding" experiences.

 

Yes, I understand that other people might have difficulty in comprehending my finding experience. The thing is: I. don't. care. *I* know what my finding experiences are. *I* know that I signed the log sheet or met the criteria for an virtual or earth cache on all of my finds...except one. If someone else has a problem with that I really don't think I am under any obligation to meet someone elses strict definition of how to play the game.

 

 

 

[cezanne]

Yes, I think there's a basic, common understanding about what a "find" is. I suspect the vast majority of geocachers agree you must at least see a traditional cache's container before you can claim to have found it. That seems pretty basic.

 

I'm not really sure about the "vast majority part". It seems to me that more and more cachers in my country seem to think that if a cache disappeared or cannot be reached during certain periods, they are entitled to a found it log. It has become customary to expect "log permissions" offered by the cache owner. Some of the caches with such issues do not even get disabled (and those do not always belong to inactive cache owners).

 

Cezanne

[+CanadianRockies]

Yes, I think there's a basic, common understanding about what a "find" is. I suspect the vast majority of geocachers agree you must at least see a traditional cache's container before you can claim to have found it. That seems pretty basic.

I'm not really sure about the "vast majority part". It seems to me that more and more cachers in my country seem to think that if a cache disappeared or cannot be reached during certain periods, they are entitled to a found it log. It has become customary to expect "log permissions" offered by the cache owner. Some of the caches with such issues do not even get disabled (and those do not always belong to inactive cache owners).

That's certainly one of the risks of photologging. If the practice becomes more and more widespread, then "geocaching" becomes less and less meaningful.

[+CanadianRockies]

*I* know that I found at least one cache in every country and state shown on my statistics page. If someone else wants to think my other finds are in question based on the fact that I honestly declared that I didn't sign the log sheet on 1 of my 1100+ finds I'm fine with that.

But you also seem to want to share with other geocachers your "finds" in foreign countries. You've repeatedly done so in these forums. But if your definition of a traditional cache "find" is so broad that it includes simply taking a picture at Ground Zero rather than spotting a container, then you should understand how people might have difficulty comprehending your "finding" experiences.

Yes, I understand that other people might have difficulty in comprehending my finding experience. The thing is: I. don't. care. *I* know what my finding experiences are.

For someone who doesn't care what others think of your foreign caching "finds," you sure mention them a lot on the forums.

[+tozainamboku]

Which is worse? Openly lying by using the wrong log type, or lying about the circumstances and helping someone out? One keeps the cache listed and findable, and the other risks it getting archived.

I'm not sure that it's that clear cut. What gets a cache archived in not that the owner allows a photo log or accepts throwdown replacments. It's because cache owner is not meeting listing guidelines. By stating that a find can be logged even though there is no cache to find, the owner has turned the cache into a virtual and has violated the guideline that there be a container and log. I suspect that if an owner allowed a find on missing cache, but then disabled it and went to check/replace the cache in a reasonable time that there would be no problem.

 

With a throwdown, its up to the owner to decide if they want to accept it or not. Recent guideance in the Help Center indicate that the owner should check on the cache when the become aware of the throwdown. But I suspect that a simple statement from the cache owner that the throwdown is acceptable would be sufficient. I've seen caches that have had a Needs Archive still get archived when someone other than the owner leaves a throwdown and the owner does not acknowledge it. This may lead the reviewer to believe that the owner has abandoned maintenance of the cache. It's not enough to leave a throwdown if the reviewer sees the cache is abandoned.

 

My guess is that a cache with an active owner, who responds to reviewer notes, and who appears to understand the maintenance guidelines, is not going to be archived. A cache with no owner or an owner who appears to be circumventing the maintenance guidelines will get archived.

[+tozainamboku]

That's certainly one of the risks of photologging. If the practice becomes more and more widespread, then "geocaching" becomes less and less meaningful.

Believe it or not, I'm pretty much a puritan when it comes to my logging. I have from time to time logged a find without signing the log - lost my pen, pen didn't write, log too wet to write on. But I've also gone back to cache I couldn't sign just because the puritans have me convinced it's something I ought to do. And I will always log a DNF if I don't find cache and not take up offers from owners for an alternative logging method or to change the DNF to a find because "the cache was missing".

 

But it doesn't surprise me that some cache owners have allowed find logs for meeting some alternative requirement and that cache seekers are will to make these logs. Even as these practices become more widespread, they have not altered the way I cache. My geocaching and my finds are meaningful to me because I know what practices I adhere to. What others may do does not change that meaning one iota, nor do I let it effect my enjoyment of geocaching.

[cezanne]

My geocaching and my finds are meaningful to me because I know what practices I adhere to. What others may do does not change that meaning one iota, nor do I let it effect my enjoyment of geocaching.

 

I do not fully agree. If for example it becomes accepted to not disable caches if there is no container or the container cannot be reached at the moment, I will not know in advance that I might prefer to visit this cache at another time when it is available again and I can sign the log book.

 

Moreover, as the thread about cheating cachers from Germany shows cachers from certain regions/countries etc can easily get a bad reputation because some cachers there misbehave.

 

Cezanne

[+NYPaddleCacher]

*I* know that I found at least one cache in every country and state shown on my statistics page. If someone else wants to think my other finds are in question based on the fact that I honestly declared that I didn't sign the log sheet on 1 of my 1100+ finds I'm fine with that.

But you also seem to want to share with other geocachers your "finds" in foreign countries. You've repeatedly done so in these forums. But if your definition of a traditional cache "find" is so broad that it includes simply taking a picture at Ground Zero rather than spotting a container, then you should understand how people might have difficulty comprehending your "finding" experiences.

Yes, I understand that other people might have difficulty in comprehending my finding experience. The thing is: I. don't. care. *I* know what my finding experiences are.

For someone who doesn't care what others think of your foreign caching "finds," you sure mention them a lot on the forums.

 

Despite the pile on I've been getting in this thread I've tried to be civil. Please try to do the same. What I post in other forum threads is irrelevant to this discussion.

 

 

 

[Clan Riffster]

But if the owner is complicit to what most would agree are cheesy logging practices, or, if the owner is MIA and no longer doing anything about the logs on their caches, the integrity, such as it is, has already been lost. At that point, even a "Greetings From Germany!" log would cause no further harm.

 

Harm? Other than archival?

Archival is not always a bad thing.

 

Photologging will, I hope, never become the accepted practice. At its most basic, this is a game of high tech hide & seek. Folks hide containers, other folks find them. It's really simple. But to suggest that a single photolog on a cache is harmful is silly. Those who rely on past logs, (which I often do), will suffer no harm, since they'll be able to tell in a matter of seconds that the person claiming the find did not actually locate the cache. Those caches owned by active, yet complicit owners who allow photologs should probably be put out of their misery. Those caches owned by MIA owners who no longer care about photologs on caches they walked away from should certainly be archived. Those caches owned by dedicated, committed owners will suffer no harm, as said owner will either allow them occasionally, under very specific circumstances, or will simply delete them.

 

End result in all cases? No real harm.

[Clan Riffster]

But if the owner is complicit [...] or, if the owner is MIA and no longer doing anything about the logs on their caches, the integrity, such as it is, has already been lost.

So then that makes it o.k. to encourage other cachers to do the same, spread it to other caches and have new cachers think it is the norm?

I'm a bit unclear how you made such a huge leap in logic. Assume for argument's sake that I hunt a 5/5 for all of 5 seconds, give up, take a picture of ground zero, and in a fit of entitlement, log it as a find. Depending on your viewpoint, such behavior could speak volumes about my individual character. But if someone else sees me doing this, they'll have to rely on their own moral compass to dictate if it's an acceptable practice or not. The actions of others cannot be laid at my door. They make their own choices, and if those choices include cheesy logging practices, that's on them.

[4wheelin_fool]

But if the owner is complicit to what most would agree are cheesy logging practices, or, if the owner is MIA and no longer doing anything about the logs on their caches, the integrity, such as it is, has already been lost. At that point, even a "Greetings From Germany!" log would cause no further harm.

 

Harm? Other than archival?

Archival is not always a bad thing.

 

Photologging will, I hope, never become the accepted practice. At its most basic, this is a game of high tech hide & seek. Folks hide containers, other folks find them. It's really simple. But to suggest that a single photolog on a cache is harmful is silly. Those who rely on past logs, (which I often do), will suffer no harm, since they'll be able to tell in a matter of seconds that the person claiming the find did not actually locate the cache. Those caches owned by active, yet complicit owners who allow photologs should probably be put out of their misery. Those caches owned by MIA owners who no longer care about photologs on caches they walked away from should certainly be archived. Those caches owned by dedicated, committed owners will suffer no harm, as said owner will either allow them occasionally, under very specific circumstances, or will simply delete them.

 

End result in all cases? No real harm.

 

Unless it becomes popular and the FOTOLOGGERS do not discern whether or not they found an actual container, as mentioned by Cezanne and jellis, as it seems to be happening already. You would then see pictures of people at GZ with no indication of whether they actually found it or not.

 

As far as personal responsibility, I agree that everyone can only be held responsible for their own actions, but the more people that do it only encourages others to do it. People are naturally followers and if you are leading by poor example, others will copy you. It is inevitable. Responsibility ends with your own actions, but it does add to the snowball rolling downhill.

Edited October 15, 2013 by 4wheelin_fool

[+Ambrosia]

But if the owner is complicit to what most would agree are cheesy logging practices, or, if the owner is MIA and no longer doing anything about the logs on their caches, the integrity, such as it is, has already been lost. At that point, even a "Greetings From Germany!" log would cause no further harm.

 

Harm? Other than archival?

Archival is not always a bad thing.

 

Photologging will, I hope, never become the accepted practice. At its most basic, this is a game of high tech hide & seek. Folks hide containers, other folks find them. It's really simple. But to suggest that a single photolog on a cache is harmful is silly. Those who rely on past logs, (which I often do), will suffer no harm, since they'll be able to tell in a matter of seconds that the person claiming the find did not actually locate the cache. Those caches owned by active, yet complicit owners who allow photologs should probably be put out of their misery. Those caches owned by MIA owners who no longer care about photologs on caches they walked away from should certainly be archived. Those caches owned by dedicated, committed owners will suffer no harm, as said owner will either allow them occasionally, under very specific circumstances, or will simply delete them.

 

End result in all cases? No real harm.

 

Unless it becomes popular and the FOTOLOGGERS do not discern whether or not they found an actual container, as mentioned by Cezanne, as it seems to be happening already. You would then see pictures of people at GZ with no indication of whether they found it or not.

 

As far as personal responsibility, I agree that everyone can only be held responsible for their own actions, but the more people that do it only encourages others to do it. People are naturally followers and if you are leading by poor example, others will copy you. It is inevitable. Responsibility ends with your own actions, but it does add to the snowball rolling downhill.

Thank you for this post. I was thinking about posting something quite similar, but was afraid that I wouldn't have been able to phrase it in such a polite manner.

[+CanadianRockies]

That's certainly one of the risks of photologging. If the practice becomes more and more widespread, then "geocaching" becomes less and less meaningful.

Even as these practices become more widespread, they have not altered the way I cache. My geocaching and my finds are meaningful to me because I know what practices I adhere to. What others may do does not change that meaning one iota, nor do I let it effect my enjoyment of geocaching.

I meant "meaningful" in the sense that the word "geocaching" loses its meaning. If it can mean not only spotting a cache but also simply photographing Ground Zero (or driving past Ground Zero or viewing Ground Zero on Google Earth or logging a "Found It" from an armchair), then it becomes hard to understand what people mean when they use the word "geocaching."

 

It might have meaning to you, but it expresses only a very vague concept when you try to communicate with others.

[+CanadianRockies]

*I* know that I found at least one cache in every country and state shown on my statistics page. If someone else wants to think my other finds are in question based on the fact that I honestly declared that I didn't sign the log sheet on 1 of my 1100+ finds I'm fine with that.

But you also seem to want to share with other geocachers your "finds" in foreign countries. You've repeatedly done so in these forums. But if your definition of a traditional cache "find" is so broad that it includes simply taking a picture at Ground Zero rather than spotting a container, then you should understand how people might have difficulty comprehending your "finding" experiences.

Yes, I understand that other people might have difficulty in comprehending my finding experience. The thing is: I. don't. care. *I* know what my finding experiences are.

For someone who doesn't care what others think of your foreign caching "finds," you sure mention them a lot on the forums.

Despite the pile on I've been getting in this thread I've tried to be civil. Please try to do the same. What I post in other forum threads is irrelevant to this discussion.

What you post elsewhere on this forum is quite relevant to this discussion. It shows you want to share your geocaching "finding" experiences with others. I pointed out that this becomes more difficult when your definition of a "find" is very broad.

 

When words become less meaningful, language and communication start to break down. While you know what your "finding" experiences are, others will have a more difficult time understanding them.

Edited October 15, 2013 by CanadianRockies

[+Sagefox]

...but the more people that do it only encourages others to do it. People are naturally followers and if you are leading by poor example, others will copy you.

Especially if you are an experienced geocaching veteran.

 

"Greetings From Germany" did not suddenly appear in full force. One person must have thought it up, then their friends joined in and then it went viral.

[+fizzymagic]

Depending on your viewpoint, such behavior could speak volumes about my individual character. But if someone else sees me doing this, they'll have to rely on their own moral compass to dictate if it's an acceptable practice or not. The actions of others cannot be laid at my door. They make their own choices, and if those choices include cheesy logging practices, that's on them.

 

While I understand the position you have taken, the problem is that it does not work the way in reality, even in your own mind.

 

The research is quite clear: people's moral standards are affected unconsciously by the behaviors deemed acceptable by a group of which they consider themselves a part. A good summary of this research is presented by Dan Ariely in the book "The (Honest) Truth About Dishonesty." Or you can read the primary papers, many of which are available on arXiv. What's amazing is that the effect is quite strong, even in people who don't believe their moral choices are influenced by others. Those people, it turns out, tend to be lying to themselves.

 

Like it or not, the evidence is unambiguous. Allowing behaviors such as this to persist, under the notion that "they aren't hurting anyone but themselves," will have the effect of making those behaviors more acceptable in the eyes of the community at large, even those who claim it won't!

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Depending on your viewpoint, such behavior could speak volumes about my individual character. But if someone else sees me doing this, they'll have to rely on their own moral compass to dictate if it's an acceptable practice or not. The actions of others cannot be laid at my door. They make their own choices, and if those choices include cheesy logging practices, that's on them.

 

While I understand the position you have taken, the problem is that it does not work the way in reality, even in your own mind.

 

The research is quite clear: people's moral standards are affected unconsciously by the behaviors deemed acceptable by a group of which they consider themselves a part. A good summary of this research is presented by Dan Ariely in the book "The (Honest) Truth About Dishonesty." Or you can read the primary papers, many of which are available on arXiv. What's amazing is that the effect is quite strong, even in people who don't believe their moral choices are influenced by others. Those people, it turns out, tend to be lying to themselves.

 

Do those articles mentioned in arXiv say anything about frequency of behavior? For example, if someone smoked 1 cigarette as a teenager, does that single instance of a behavior carry the same weight as someone that smokes everyday? I suppose I could look it up myself in arXiv as I'm a contributing developer of the code in arXiv.

 

 

 

[+FunnyNose]

Yes, I think there's a basic, common understanding about what a "find" is. I suspect the vast majority of geocachers agree you must at least see a traditional cache's container before you can claim to have found it. That seems pretty basic.

I'm not really sure about the "vast majority part". It seems to me that more and more cachers in my country seem to think that if a cache disappeared or cannot be reached during certain periods, they are entitled to a found it log. It has become customary to expect "log permissions" offered by the cache owner. Some of the caches with such issues do not even get disabled (and those do not always belong to inactive cache owners).

That's certainly one of the risks of photologging. If the practice becomes more and more widespread, then "geocaching" becomes less and less meaningful.

 

In another recent example where a bunch of people are not completing the requirements of a virtual and posting photos instead and there is a viable alternate website where fotologging is acceptable and Groundspeak even approves of it.

Yet almost no one bothers to post their fotologs there.

Edited October 15, 2013 by FunnyNose

[+Sagefox]

Do those articles mentioned in arXiv say anything about frequency of behavior? For example, if someone smoked 1 cigarette as a teenager...

NYPC you are hereby absolved of any harm, real or imagined, to this game. One, or a couple of instances is not enough to bring action against you in this courtroom. Your confession did contribute nicely to the conversation but since it is not common practice for you, you are hereby released and your bond will be returned.

[+Don_J]

Yes, I think there's a basic, common understanding about what a "find" is. I suspect the vast majority of geocachers agree you must at least see a traditional cache's container before you can claim to have found it. That seems pretty basic.

I'm not really sure about the "vast majority part". It seems to me that more and more cachers in my country seem to think that if a cache disappeared or cannot be reached during certain periods, they are entitled to a found it log. It has become customary to expect "log permissions" offered by the cache owner. Some of the caches with such issues do not even get disabled (and those do not always belong to inactive cache owners).

That's certainly one of the risks of photologging. If the practice becomes more and more widespread, then "geocaching" becomes less and less meaningful.

 

In another recent example where a bunch of people are not completing the requirements of a virtual and posting photos instead and there is a viable alternate website where fotologging is acceptable and Groundspeak even approves of it.

Yet almost no one bothers to post their fotologs there.

 

You know, it really sucks that you posted a NM on that cache because of a temporary situation that is out of the cache owner's control. This could lead to an archival of a perfectly good virtual cache. Once it's gone, it can never come back and since it is NPS, a physical cache can't be placed either. I think in this case a little bit of discretion can go a long way.

[+Harry Dolphin]

You know, it really sucks that you posted a NM on that cache because of a temporary situation that is out of the cache owner's control. This could lead to an archival of a perfectly good virtual cache. Once it's gone, it can never come back and since it is NPS, a physical cache can't be placed either. I think in this case a little bit of discretion can go a long way.

 

Virtual caches need to be maintained too! The CO here is permitting fotologging on a cache that is not available. He is not doing proper maintenance. The lack of discretion is on the part of the CO.

Virtual caches can get archived for permitting fotologging. It is up to the CO to do the proper maintenance: Mark as unavailable when it is unavailable. Delete the bogus logs.

Unfortunatley, many Virtual COs consider themselves above the regulations. I've seen some where the cache/requirements for logging were unavailable for many months. Unfortunately, the COs permitted bogus logs. It is the CO that is causing the problem, due to not performing proper maintenance.

[Clan Riffster]

But if the owner is complicit to what most would agree are cheesy logging practices, or, if the owner is MIA and no longer doing anything about the logs on their caches, the integrity, such as it is, has already been lost. At that point, even a "Greetings From Germany!" log would cause no further harm.

 

Harm? Other than archival?

Archival is not always a bad thing.

 

Photologging will, I hope, never become the accepted practice. At its most basic, this is a game of high tech hide & seek. Folks hide containers, other folks find them. It's really simple. But to suggest that a single photolog on a cache is harmful is silly. Those who rely on past logs, (which I often do), will suffer no harm, since they'll be able to tell in a matter of seconds that the person claiming the find did not actually locate the cache. Those caches owned by active, yet complicit owners who allow photologs should probably be put out of their misery. Those caches owned by MIA owners who no longer care about photologs on caches they walked away from should certainly be archived. Those caches owned by dedicated, committed owners will suffer no harm, as said owner will either allow them occasionally, under very specific circumstances, or will simply delete them.

 

End result in all cases? No real harm.

 

Unless it becomes popular and the FOTOLOGGERS do not discern whether or not they found an actual container, as mentioned by Cezanne and jellis, as it seems to be happening already. You would then see pictures of people at GZ with no indication of whether they actually found it or not.

 

As far as personal responsibility, I agree that everyone can only be held responsible for their own actions, but the more people that do it only encourages others to do it. People are naturally followers and if you are leading by poor example, others will copy you. It is inevitable. Responsibility ends with your own actions, but it does add to the snowball rolling downhill.

Worthy arguments, all. Before you accelerate your use of all caps, please keep in mind that I am not an advocate of photologging. I'm not your adversary in this issue. I just don't see it as an issue worthy of much more than an eye roll and a chuckle. I see it the same as those who practice leap frog logging and throw down caching. Neither match what is commonly accepted as a find. Yet it happens from time to time. And the sky does not fall. Those cache owners who receive these types of finds on their caches should be resolving the issue. That's what will reduce this practice. Not vilifying the photologger.

 

The research is quite clear: people's moral standards are affected unconsciously by the behaviors deemed acceptable by a group of which they consider themselves a part.

Where your theory hits a wall is at the word "Group".

 

Photologging, leap frogging, throw downs, and/or any behavior outside the norm, (locate the cache, retreive it, open it, sign the log, close it, replace it, log a find), are not exactly accepted behaviors by any herd of folks large enough to be called a group. Rather, I would say the term 'group' is best reserved for the much larger percentage, those who do it right. If I had to invent a statistic, I'd say roughly 3.4% of players occasionally practice one of the above behaviors. If another invented statistic is needed, i'd say roughly 0.037% of cachers practice one or more of these behaviors on a regular basis. The 'group', (AKA: the rest of us), do it right. Between my currently owned caches, archived caches, caches I've adopted over to others, and caches belonging to a sock puppet I know well, I'd guesstimate that I've been directly involved in a couple hundred caches. Of all the logs on all these caches, maybe one or two fit the aforementioned alternate logging method?

 

There is no 'group' for these folks to learn from.

[+fizzymagic]

Photologging, leap frogging, throw downs, and/or any behavior outside the norm, (locate the cache, retreive it, open it, sign the log, close it, replace it, log a find), are not exactly accepted behaviors by any herd of folks large enough to be called a group. Rather, I would say the term 'group' is best reserved for the much larger percentage, those who do it right. If I had to invent a statistic, I'd say roughly 3.4% of players occasionally practice one of the above behaviors.

 

The behavior only needs to be implicitly accepted by the group for it to appear normalized. Not saying anything, not deleting logs, etc. is in fact implicit acceptance.

 

Right now, this behavior is restricted to small minority (at least in the US) but I have seen evidence of new cachers assuming it was acceptable. If we chalk it up to that "small minority" and ignore it, then don't be surprised if it becomes more common.

[+Don_J]

You know, it really sucks that you posted a NM on that cache because of a temporary situation that is out of the cache owner's control. This could lead to an archival of a perfectly good virtual cache. Once it's gone, it can never come back and since it is NPS, a physical cache can't be placed either. I think in this case a little bit of discretion can go a long way.

 

Virtual caches need to be maintained too! The CO here is permitting fotologging on a cache that is not available. He is not doing proper maintenance. The lack of discretion is on the part of the CO.

Virtual caches can get archived for permitting fotologging. It is up to the CO to do the proper maintenance: Mark as unavailable when it is unavailable. Delete the bogus logs.

Unfortunatley, many Virtual COs consider themselves above the regulations. I've seen some where the cache/requirements for logging were unavailable for many months. Unfortunately, the COs permitted bogus logs. It is the CO that is causing the problem, due to not performing proper maintenance.

 

The situation has existed a little over two weeks and will resolve itself as soon as the numbskulls in DC stop knocking heads. Neither you or I know have any idea how the CO, (who is active), will respond to the photo logs. Certainly you understand that life gets in the way at times and responding instantly to the situation shouldn't be expected. I just think that considering the circumstance, a little bit of leeway should be in order. It is not like the cache that started this topic, which seems to be an abandoned traditional cache.

 

Additionally, many virtual caches are set up to be photo logged. If I were the CO, I would temporarily change it to "Post a photo of the Arch with you GPS in it to log this cache", or a photo of the closed sign with your GPS.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

 

Additionally, many virtual caches are set up to be photo logged. If I were the CO, I would temporarily change it to "Post a photo of the Arch with you GPS in it to log this cache", or a photo of the closed sign with your GPS.

 

Ironically, if that were the requirements for logging the St. Louis Arch virtual I would have found it a couple of months ago. I found two traditional caches in the park but the virtual required a visit to the museum under the arch (which is currently closed) to answer a bunch of questions. It's a rather unusual virtual as it's more like a multi. Answering questions at different locations in the museum will produce a set of coordinates for a plaque. To get credit for the find one must answer a question about what is on that plaque. I never go time to go through the museum so I didn't log it as a find.

 

 

[4wheelin_fool]

Additionally, many virtual caches are set up to be photo logged.

Most of them have requirements to find a specific object.

 

If I were the CO, I would temporarily change it to "Post a photo of the Arch with you GPS in it to log this cache", or a photo of the closed sign with your GPS.

You would change an eight stage multi which has the cacher locate several plaques with interesting and historical information, to a simple photo shoot? That alone may get it archived. It should be disabled or maintained.

Edited October 16, 2013 by 4wheelin_fool

[+Don_J]

Additionally, many virtual caches are set up to be photo logged.

Most of them have requirements to find a specific object.

 

If I were the CO, I would temporarily change it to "Post a photo of the Arch with you GPS in it to log this cache", or a photo of the closed sign with your GPS.

You would change an eight stage multi which has the cacher locate several plaques with interesting and historical information, to a simple photo shoot? That alone may get it archived. It should be disabled or maintained.

 

If I was being pestered by other parties through Needs Maintenance logs, basically telling me how I should handle my business, yes, I would, as it would keep the cache consistent with the guidelines and I wouldn't have to worry about it getting archived.

[4wheelin_fool]

The research is quite clear: people's moral standards are affected unconsciously by the behaviors deemed acceptable by a group of which they consider themselves a part.

Where your theory hits a wall is at the word "Group".

 

Photologging, leap frogging, throw downs, and/or any behavior outside the norm, (locate the cache, retreive it, open it, sign the log, close it, replace it, log a find), are not exactly accepted behaviors by any herd of folks large enough to be called a group. Rather, I would say the term 'group' is best reserved for the much larger percentage, those who do it right.

 

They are called Germans. Of course not all Germans participate in the practice, but a much higher percentage of cachers certainly do this from Germany than other countries. They have also distinguished themselves by announcing which country they are from. This is because it is openly accepted there.

 

 

If I had to invent a statistic, I'd say roughly 3.4% of players occasionally practice one of the above behaviors. If another invented statistic is needed, i'd say roughly 0.037% of cachers practice one or more of these behaviors on a regular basis. The 'group', (AKA: the rest of us), do it right. Between my currently owned caches, archived caches, caches I've adopted over to others, and caches belonging to a sock puppet I know well, I'd guesstimate that I've been directly involved in a couple hundred caches. Of all the logs on all these caches, maybe one or two fit the aforementioned alternate logging method?

 

There is no 'group' for these folks to learn from.

 

What becomes trendy is when a larger percentage of the population does it. Why did people start wearing bell bottoms and platform shoes, with men growing long hair and ponytails at one time? The more that do something, the more likely others will do it. On some level everyone is a follower. Even leaders follow the example set by other leaders.

[4wheelin_fool]

Additionally, many virtual caches are set up to be photo logged.

Most of them have requirements to find a specific object.

 

If I were the CO, I would temporarily change it to "Post a photo of the Arch with you GPS in it to log this cache", or a photo of the closed sign with your GPS.

You would change an eight stage multi which has the cacher locate several plaques with interesting and historical information, to a simple photo shoot? That alone may get it archived. It should be disabled or maintained.

 

If I was being pestered by other parties through Needs Maintenance logs, basically telling me how I should handle my business, yes, I would, as it would keep the cache consistent with the guidelines and I wouldn't have to worry about it getting archived.

 

Drastically changing the requirements and/or allowing bogus logs is what could get it archived. If it needs maintenance, that's everyone's business. If someone sees that red wrench, they may not want to travel over there if they know they cannot complete it as intended. The owner appears to be active, and it is very unlikely to be archived for the Needing Maintenance attribute being set.

[+Don_J]

Additionally, many virtual caches are set up to be photo logged.

Most of them have requirements to find a specific object.

 

If I were the CO, I would temporarily change it to "Post a photo of the Arch with you GPS in it to log this cache", or a photo of the closed sign with your GPS.

You would change an eight stage multi which has the cacher locate several plaques with interesting and historical information, to a simple photo shoot? That alone may get it archived. It should be disabled or maintained.

 

If I was being pestered by other parties through Needs Maintenance logs, basically telling me how I should handle my business, yes, I would, as it would keep the cache consistent with the guidelines and I wouldn't have to worry about it getting archived.

 

Drastically changing the requirements and/or allowing bogus logs is what could get it archived. If it needs maintenance, that's everyone's business. If someone sees that red wrench, they may not want to travel over there if they know they cannot complete it as intended. The owner appears to be active, and it is very unlikely to be archived for the Needing Maintenance attribute being set.

 

I can agree with that. I just saw no need for the NM to be posted, and then for it to be called out on the forum which instantly puts it under un-needed scrutiny.

[+tozainamboku]

Photologging, leap frogging, throw downs, and/or any behavior outside the norm, (locate the cache, retreive it, open it, sign the log, close it, replace it, log a find), are not exactly accepted behaviors by any herd of folks large enough to be called a group. Rather, I would say the term 'group' is best reserved for the much larger percentage, those who do it right. If I had to invent a statistic, I'd say roughly 3.4% of players occasionally practice one of the above behaviors.

 

The behavior only needs to be implicitly accepted by the group for it to appear normalized. Not saying anything, not deleting logs, etc. is in fact implicit acceptance.

 

Right now, this behavior is restricted to small minority (at least in the US) but I have seen evidence of new cachers assuming it was acceptable. If we chalk it up to that "small minority" and ignore it, then don't be surprised if it becomes more common.

What is implicitly accepted, if anything, is not some idea that you never have to find caches to log a find. Photologging is generally done only in a very specific case - the cacher is convinced the cache is missing and the cache owner is allowing finds to be logged.

 

Of course what has happened is that this "group" has the expectation that cache owners always allow these logs. In the rare cases when they are deleted, the photologgers seem to be taken aback. Many cache owners, including myself, don't really want to police their cache pages for this sort of activity. If you believe the find count isn't a score, and the online log is simply someone writing up their experience looking for a cache, then the use of the find log in this case is either ignorance on the part of the logger in choosing the correct type of log, or something that only merits rolling one's eye at an individual thinking that the smiley for a find is worth more than a frowny for a DNF.

 

I still think the problem is that the site almost discourages the use of the DNF log. It provides none of the advantages of using the Found It log, and "groupthink" has turned the DNF into a negative that people avoid at any cost.

[Clan Riffster]

Photologging, leap frogging, throw downs, and/or any behavior outside the norm, (locate the cache, retreive it, open it, sign the log, close it, replace it, log a find), are not exactly accepted behaviors by any herd of folks large enough to be called a group. Rather, I would say the term 'group' is best reserved for the much larger percentage, those who do it right. If I had to invent a statistic, I'd say roughly 3.4% of players occasionally practice one of the above behaviors.

 

The behavior only needs to be implicitly accepted by the group...

It has not been implicitly accepted by the group.

As such, you are still hitting said wall.

 

They are called Germans.

Yeah, I'm familiar with the "Greetings From Germany" threads in the forums.

Though I've never actually seen one of these in person.

Looks like it's time for another invented statistic:

Roughly 0.13% of German cachers have posted such logs.

The sky is not falling, yet. Even over yonder.

 

What becomes trendy is when a larger percentage of the population does it. Why did people start wearing bell bottoms and platform shoes, with men growing long hair and ponytails at one time? The more that do something, the more likely others will do it. On some level everyone is a follower. Even leaders follow the example set by other leaders.

Sorry brother. My wife and kids have forbidden me from having an opinion on anything related to fashion.

But I can touch on group dynamics. Where the trend you cite is flawed, is that you don't divide the behaviors betwixt those commonly accepted as bad, and those commonly accepted as good. The revised version should read something like; "The more people do something that the group they identify with commonly accepts as a positive behavior, the more likely others will do it". Since the group does not accept these negative behaviors, the compulsion for others to follow is not there.

[4wheelin_fool]

What becomes trendy is when a larger percentage of the population does it. Why did people start wearing bell bottoms and platform shoes, with men growing long hair and ponytails at one time? The more that do something, the more likely others will do it. On some level everyone is a follower. Even leaders follow the example set by other leaders.

Sorry brother. My wife and kids have forbidden me from having an opinion on anything related to fashion.

But I can touch on group dynamics. Where the trend you cite is flawed, is that you don't divide the behaviors betwixt those commonly accepted as bad, and those commonly accepted as good. The revised version should read something like; "The more people do something that the group they identify with commonly accepts as a positive behavior, the more likely others will do it". Since the group does not accept these negative behaviors, the compulsion for others to follow is not there.

 

Says who that the group does not accept these negative behaviors? That is the point of the thread. Several people do accept it. It is done because it is expected that at least some of their peers will accept it. In some areas such as Germany, it is more popular among the group only because of local trends.

 

Other than that, there is not much immoral about it. I personally don't even consider it "cheating". How can you cheat at geocaching where there is no winner? They are only using a website, and not physically harming anyone. It is rather an undesirable trend in which they are using an misleading and false log type. The motivation appears to be superficial greed.

 

greed·y (grd)

adj. greed·i·er, greed·i·est

1. Excessively desirous of acquiring or possessing, especially wishing to possess more than what one needs or deserves.

[Clan Riffster]

What becomes trendy is when a larger percentage of the population does it. Why did people start wearing bell bottoms and platform shoes, with men growing long hair and ponytails at one time? The more that do something, the more likely others will do it. On some level everyone is a follower. Even leaders follow the example set by other leaders.

Sorry brother. My wife and kids have forbidden me from having an opinion on anything related to fashion.

But I can touch on group dynamics. Where the trend you cite is flawed, is that you don't divide the behaviors betwixt those commonly accepted as bad, and those commonly accepted as good. The revised version should read something like; "The more people do something that the group they identify with commonly accepts as a positive behavior, the more likely others will do it". Since the group does not accept these negative behaviors, the compulsion for others to follow is not there.

 

Says who that the group does not accept these negative behaviors?

Who? That would be almost every geocacher I know, save one, (several hundred folks), and the vast majority of folks who post in threads about throw down caching, leap frog caching, caches out of reach, photologging, and any other logging practice outside the norm. If you wish to test this theory, simply create a sock, and post a thread on here saying you believe it's acceptable to log finds on caches you've never even had in your hands.

[cezanne]

Who? That would be almost every geocacher I know, save one, (several hundred folks), and the vast majority of folks who post in threads about throw down caching, leap frog caching, caches out of reach, photologging, and any other logging practice outside the norm. If you wish to test this theory, simply create a sock, and post a thread on here saying you believe it's acceptable to log finds on caches you've never even had in your hands.

 

My conjecture is that in my home country the majority of geocachers thinks that if a cache is not there any longer, it is acceptable to log a "found it" log if one can prove one's visit at the cache location. Among this group some at least ask for permission of the cache owner before logging such finds, but the majority among those expect that the answer will be yes and react annoyed if the answer is no.

I further conjecture that the group of those who think that leaving a replacement container and then logging a "found it" is an acceptable practice as well is also quite large in my country.

(In my opinion, I cannot find something I have placed there myself a minute ago.)

 

 

Cezanne

[4wheelin_fool]

Who? That would be almost every geocacher I know, save one, (several hundred folks), and the vast majority of folks who post in threads about throw down caching, leap frog caching, caches out of reach, photologging, and any other logging practice outside the norm. If you wish to test this theory, simply create a sock, and post a thread on here saying you believe it's acceptable to log finds on caches you've never even had in your hands.

 

My conjecture is that in my home country the majority of geocachers thinks that if a cache is not there any longer, it is acceptable to log a "found it" log if one can prove one's visit at the cache location. Among this group some at least ask for permission of the cache owner before logging such finds, but the majority among those expect that the answer will be yes and react annoyed if the answer is no.

I further conjecture that the group of those who think that leaving a replacement container and then logging a "found it" is an acceptable practice as well is also quite large in my country.

(In my opinion, I cannot find something I have placed there myself a minute ago.)

 

 

Cezanne

 

Clan Riffster seem to not want to face the reality of it being popular in other countries, hence "group". Once it gathers steam, it certainly could be popular here. Florida is certainly not a microcosm of the entire world, and neither is the forum. Throw down caching, leap frog caching, caches out of reach, photologging, and any other logging practice outside the norm certainly are accepted in reality. If it wasn't accepted, it wouldn't exist. Logs would be deleted, caches archived. Tolerance for it is slowly growing.

Edited October 17, 2013 by 4wheelin_fool

[+J Grouchy]

Who? That would be almost every geocacher I know, save one, (several hundred folks), and the vast majority of folks who post in threads about throw down caching, leap frog caching, caches out of reach, photologging, and any other logging practice outside the norm. If you wish to test this theory, simply create a sock, and post a thread on here saying you believe it's acceptable to log finds on caches you've never even had in your hands.

 

My conjecture is that in my home country the majority of geocachers thinks that if a cache is not there any longer, it is acceptable to log a "found it" log if one can prove one's visit at the cache location. Among this group some at least ask for permission of the cache owner before logging such finds, but the majority among those expect that the answer will be yes and react annoyed if the answer is no.

I further conjecture that the group of those who think that leaving a replacement container and then logging a "found it" is an acceptable practice as well is also quite large in my country.

(In my opinion, I cannot find something I have placed there myself a minute ago.)

 

 

Cezanne

 

Clan Riffster seem to not want to face the reality of it being popular in other countries, hence "group". Once it gathers steam, it certainly could be popular here. Florida is certainly not a microcosm of the entire world, and neither is the forum. Throw down caching, leap frog caching, caches out of reach, photologging, and any other logging practice outside the norm certainly are accepted in reality. If it wasn't accepted, it wouldn't exist. Logs would be deleted, caches archived. Tolerance for it is slowly growing.

 

Personally, I can't wait for someone to try doing one of these things...haven't had to delete anyone's log yet but I really really WANT to have a good reason to!

Edited October 17, 2013 by J Grouchy

[Clan Riffster]

Who? That would be almost every geocacher I know, save one, (several hundred folks), and the vast majority of folks who post in threads about throw down caching, leap frog caching, caches out of reach, photologging, and any other logging practice outside the norm. If you wish to test this theory, simply create a sock, and post a thread on here saying you believe it's acceptable to log finds on caches you've never even had in your hands.

 

My conjecture is that in my home country the majority of geocachers thinks that if a cache is not there any longer, it is acceptable to log a "found it" log if one can prove one's visit at the cache location. Among this group some at least ask for permission of the cache owner before logging such finds, but the majority among those expect that the answer will be yes and react annoyed if the answer is no.

I further conjecture that the group of those who think that leaving a replacement container and then logging a "found it" is an acceptable practice as well is also quite large in my country.

(In my opinion, I cannot find something I have placed there myself a minute ago.)

 

 

Cezanne

 

Clan Riffster seem to not want to face the reality of it being popular in other countries, hence "group". Once it gathers steam, it certainly could be popular here. Florida is certainly not a microcosm of the entire world, and neither is the forum. Throw down caching, leap frog caching, caches out of reach, photologging, and any other logging practice outside the norm certainly are accepted in reality. If it wasn't accepted, it wouldn't exist. Logs would be deleted, caches archived. Tolerance for it is slowly growing.

4WF seems to not want to face the reality of it not being commonly accepted by the masses.

 

Just because the percentage in Cezanne's country is up to, (insert imaginary statistic time), 6.8% of players who have done this at some point, and 0.083% who do it on a regular basis, (far exceeding the global average), doesn't mean that the laws of gravity no longer apply. Clouds still contain the same basic mass, and the air has the same basic density. As such, the sky still is not falling. I would still offer the opinion that the onus of this issue falls squarely on the cache owners. If those folks allow it, then Groundspeak should take whatever action they deem appropriate. Casting stones at the player who logs one photolog in his entire geocaching career is over reacting. An eye roll works a lot better.

[cezanne]

Just because the percentage in Cezanne's country is up to, (insert imaginary statistic time), 6.8% of players who have done this at some point, and 0.083% who do it on a regular basis, (far exceeding the global average), doesn't mean that the laws of gravity no longer apply.

 

What I'm saying is something completely different. If you started a poll in my country (or one of the neighbouring ones, I cannot talk about North America) and ask whether the cachers think that it is ok to log a "found it" log for a cache (resp. if the cache owner should offer the permission for a found it log) if it turns out that the container went missing and if one can prove that one has visited the location, then much more than 50% of the cachers over all the whole country will answer with yes (My estimate is more than 75%!). When I write "whether they think that it is ok ....." I do not mean whether they find it morally acceptable that someone has a few logs of that type, but rather whether they think that writing found it logs for missing caches should be the normal way to go if it can be proved that one has been at the cache location and that the cache went missing.

 

I should add that for an urban traditional cache 500m from the appartment where the searcher lives the acceptance rate for a photolog will be smaller than for for a hiking cache involving a 5km + hike.

 

This is not a question of how often such situations happen. Of course it will happen more often that an average finder finds something than that the cache went missing.

 

Clouds still contain the same basic mass, and the air has the same basic density. As such, the sky still is not falling. I would still offer the opinion that the onus of this issue falls squarely on the cache owners. If those folks allow it, then Groundspeak should take whatever action they deem appropriate. Casting stones at the player who logs one photolog in his entire geocaching career is over reacting. An eye roll works a lot better.

 

Actually, I come from a different direction than you. I'm not casting stones on anyone, not even on people for whom it is a regular practice to log such finds. I have refrained from providing any concrete examples of bad practice in this thread.

 

Moreover, I have already allowed "found it" logs for a cache of mine in a special situation and I do not thrown upon cachers like NW-Paddlecacher who mentioned that he has logged a single cache based on a photolog under special circumstances.

 

What I say is that photologs in the described setting become more and more the norm and that the majority of cachers in my country expects to receive a positive answer when they ask for log permission (and a certain group does not even ask any longer). I'm simply tired of having to debate with cachers if one of my caches goes missing why I do not like them to write a "found it" log in this situation, but want them to write a DNF log. These cachers then often argue that the other hiders offer them permission to write a found it log and that's the usual way to do it. Back then when this was not common, debates of that kind did hardly occur. There were still cases when someone offered permission for a found it log, but they were very rare.

 

It even happens that cache hiders refrain from disabling caches with problems rightaway and argue that they wrote a note that everyone who can prove a visit to the location can log a found it for the time being until the cache gets maintained and that thus everything is ok. Given this changed attitude towards the meaning of a found it log, they cannot even understand any longer why cachers like me only want to write a "found it" if they can sign the log book.

 

I make an effort to be a kind person and I do not like to be blamed to be unkind just because I do not feel comfortable with offering permission for "found it" logs when there was nothing to find or the cacher simply failed to find the container which was there anyway. Do not get me wrong. I'm into caching for hiking and for the physical activity and I'm not having any special interest into searching for containers. Yet I think that signing the log book is part of the concept of all caches that have a container.

 

What I'm saying is that if newcomers see how well established cachers (among them cachers with several thousands of finds and even reviewers) act, they will think that it is perfectly ok what the others do and will not even reflect about what they are doing any longer. So it then happens that cachers like me end up as the bad people who are unkind.

 

 

Cezanne

Edited October 17, 2013 by cezanne

[4wheelin_fool]

Thanks Cezanne, that is exactly what I am saying.

 

I also never said nor implied that the sky was falling, at least not here. However what is considered unacceptible in the forums, is far from the reality of the outside caching world. Anyway, the sky does fall in Seattle constantly, as the locals refer to it as rain, and due to Genesis 9:11, we should not have to worry about that anymore.

Edited October 17, 2013 by 4wheelin_fool