Fotologging

[+tozainamboku]

First of all if you make up statistics at least define what action you are describing.

 

I don't think there are many people who have forgone DNF logs altogether and simply post finds because they were at ground zero. The activity being describes seem to have to do with a cache that is missing (perhaps several DNFs and no owner intervention or perhaps some obvious change to the area like a fire or flood). It may even be further limited to cases where the owner has given permission to use a found log.

 

Once you limit the situation, there may be a significant number of cachers who will log a find in these cases. There is probably a significant number of cachers who would not log the find but who don't really care if others do.

 

There is more of an issue in these cases as to whether the cache owner is complying with maintenance guidelines by allowing a photo log. It may be reasonable for a cache owner to allow the log under some special circumstances, but certainly the owner should be disabling the cache and replacing the container rather than turning a physical cache into a virtual. My guess is that if you see a cache that is routinely allowing a photo log that a Needs Archive is appropriate.

 

When I started geocaching a cache owner still had the ability to change the cache type without getting a reviewer involved. One often saw caches go missing and the cache owner would change the the cache to a virtual. I once went to get a first to find on a cache. At the top of the mountain all I found was the chewed up top of a Tic Tac box at the base of a tree. I posted a DNF along with a picture of the top of the Tic Tac box and a picture of the tree. The cache owner changed the cache type to a virtual with the requirement to post a picture of the tree. So I changed my DNF to a find. A day later the reviewer spotted that the cache was changed to a virtual and archived it. I suppose I will burn in hell for changing the DNF to a find

[cezanne]

I don't think there are many people who have forgone DNF logs altogether and simply post finds because they were at ground zero. The activity being describes seem to have to do with a cache that is missing (perhaps several DNFs and no owner intervention or perhaps some obvious change to the area like a fire or flood). It may even be further limited to cases where the owner has given permission to use a found log.

 

As I mentioned, the majority of cachers around here now expect the cache owner to allow found it logs in the case that it just turned out that a cache went missing.

 

I tend to disable my caches even if I only have some doubts that there might be a problem immediatel, but of course I cannot foresee problems before they are reported or I become aware of myself. There is no reason whatsoever to expect me to answer yes to the question "may I log a found it" and call me unkind and whatever if I reply with "I would prefer that you write a DNF log."

 

What I stated above is simply that the majority of cachers around here expect the "Yes, you may log a found it" answer. This is definitely not a maintenance issue. These people just do not want to return to sign the log book after the maintenance and also do not want to keep the cache unfound on their map. They want to be rewarded by a "found it" for their trip - the majority around here now seems to regard "found it" as a reward for their effort.

 

When I talked about percentages I did not talk about how many cachers have a certain log habit (=actions), but talked about the attitude of people and their expectations. These are two different aspects.

 

Cezanne

Edited October 17, 2013 by cezanne

[+Don_J]

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.

 

It's kind of funny but when the first ET Hwy PT was placed and people started coming up with various different ways to "find" and "log" the caches, several people on this forum started posting predictions on how this was going to change Geocaching. I accused them of hyperbole and a "the sky is falling" mentality. Several years later, it's obvious that they were right, I was wrong and the sky fell. I follow new cache placement in several Western states and it seems that people don't go and hide a cache any longer, they hide 25 all just over the proximity limits and they encourage people to log them in any way that they seems fit.

 

So, is the sky falling? Are we seeing logging practices such as "found the velcro, so I'm logging it as a found", or "Here's a photo of where I'm certain the cache used to be", because it is becoming more acceptable or because there are simply more cachers overall? The fact is, I am seeing people log a find instead of a DNF more and more, and it seems to be from cachers that I would never expect it from. I also wonder if they have been doing this all along and never mentioned it but are now mentioning it because it is becoming more accepted. When I see this, I shake my head and dismiss it as cheesy. Others see it and think that since it appears to be accepted, they'll do it also. The cache at the top of this thread is a perfect example of monkey see, monkey do. As an LEO, I'm sure that you are familiar with the phenomenon of where people in a group will sometimes act with the group even though it goes against their basic nature, the so call mob mentality. I get the impression that you are a strong individual that would not fall into this and I feel that I am the same way, but I am also not willing to contend that it does not happen and that it isn't happening in geocaching. The "three card monte" on power trails never should have happened, but it did and even those of us that think it is stupid, cheating and would never practice it have come to accept it as normal.

 

In 2007, I was looking for a cache. The description said that it was an ammo can under a low bush. At GZ, there was bush with a perfect ammo can shaped and sized impression in the dirt, but no ammo can. I took a photo and posted it with my DNF log. I'm pretty certain that every cacher that I knew at the time would do the same thing. If this happened now, I would react the same way, but I know of at least two cachers that I knew then that would log the dirt impression as found, and I know several others that have joined the group since that would leave a film can or pill bottle as a substitute for an ammo can, and then log it. Most of this happens because even if we don't agree with where the group is heading, we don't challenge it because we do want to be cast out of the group, and it's just a little thing anyway, no big deal. Later on we realize that it's like a puppy. We don't really notice a puppy growing, we just realize one day that it's a dog, and you can never make it a puppy again.

[+Don_J]

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.

 

Cezanne

 

What do you think that percentage would be if you took that poll in 2007?

[Clan Riffster]

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.

I would counter that the folks on the forum, who are a diverse sampling from across the globe, more accurately represent the traditions and mores of the total geocaching community than the good folks from Austria. If throwdowns, leap frogging, photologging and other cheesy practices have become SOP in Austria, any blame to be placed should be directed at the cache owners.

[+DragonsWest]

Geez. Next thing you know someone will gripe about finding beyond the grave.

[cezanne]

I would counter that the folks on the forum, who are a diverse sampling from across the globe, more accurately represent the traditions and mores of the total geocaching community than the good folks from Austria. If throwdowns, leap frogging, photologging and other cheesy practices have become SOP in Austria, any blame to be placed should be directed at the cache owners.

 

I was not talking about leap frogging and things like that. Most Austrian geocachers do not even know what this means/is (and there is also no German term for it).

 

In my experience the situation in the countries around (Germany, Switzerland, Slovenia, Czech Republic, Slovakia etc) is not that different.

More and more cachers expect to receive the permission to write a "found it" log when they feel that they deserve it.

 

I mentioned my home country only because I know the situation there the best and follow it on a regular basis (and not just by reading forum posts or a few visits per year).

There is absolutely nothing special about geocaching practices in Austria in this regard when comparing it with the countries around.

 

I do not agree that the cache owners are to be blamed. I guess that many cachers offer log permission because they want to be kind and do not want to end

up in debates and being blamed to be unkind and to take a game too honest. I feel strong enough for such debate, most of the cachers around do not or do not feel that it is worth and so they simply answer with yes and also gradually change their attitude and then regard it as normal to log a "found it" even if nothing was to be found.

 

Cezanne

 

PS: The people who actively write in this part of the forum are not really a good sampling from people around the globe. The number of European cachers who are not from the UK and who write here regularly can be counted with the finger of two hands.There are many countries that are not represented at all.

 

PPS: BTW: I think that one of the reasons for the recent trend in my country to favour traditionals and one stage mysteries over caches with more than one stage is also connected to the fact that more and more cachers want to be rewarded for their effort by "found it" logs. The more effort went into a cache, the larger is the number of cachers who expect to receive permission to log a "found it" despite a failure.

Edited October 18, 2013 by cezanne

[+redsox_mark]

I don't know what the statistics are, but the "Found it/Didn't Find it" thread shows many examples. Many of those are of the nature "I found the spot but the cache was missing so claiming this as a find".

 

In the UK, my experience is most cachers will NOT immediately log a find in such a case.

 

But what is becoming more common is for the owner to offer it to be claimed as a find following a DNF and once they have verified that indeed the cache was missing and it has been replaced. The logic here being: The "finder" found where the cache should have been, and likely would have found the cache if it was there. And it is not their "fault" that it was missing.

 

I don't have a problem with that personally. I know it means saying "found it" when they didn't find it. But it is a fun game, and as the initial log was DNF, and the found log only comes when the cache is back again, I don't see it harms anyone. Essentially it is the cache owner thanking the "finder" for their DNF log so they could replace their cache.

[cezanne]

In the UK, my experience is most cachers will NOT immediately log a find in such a case.

 

But what is becoming more common is for the owner to offer it to be claimed as a find following a DNF and once they have verified that indeed the cache was missing and it has been replaced. The logic here being: The "finder" found where the cache should have been, and likely would have found the cache if it was there. And it is not their "fault" that it was missing.

 

I did not talk about immediately either (there are such cases, however, but they are less numerous than the cases where contact with the cache owner has been established). Moreover, note that my percentage statement was about the general acceptance and about what the cachers think that a owner of a cache should do in such a case. What you write somehow reads like you also tend towards the opinion that the cache owner should allow found it logs when the cache went missing (or could not be opened or whatever) and the visit can be proofed and there is no danger that someone believes that the cache is still there.

 

What I wrote about is the increasing pressure on owners to answer positively to requests for logging a found it when the cache is not there any longer.

This is more and more becoming to be an expectation and if a cache owner acts differently, more and more cachers react annoyed.

 

 

For me it is the normal thing to do in such a case to log a DNF and to keep the DNF log. If the only fun a cache has to offer is logging a "found it" log, then something is wrong with the cache and geocaching as a activity. DNF simply means "did not find" - there is no connection to fun whatsoever.

In my opinion there is no need to offer an encouragement for DNF logs.

 

As the time of a log is regarded, most cachers want to keep their logs in order. So they either turn the DNF in a found it log (which is simply incorrect and destroys the proper history of the cache) or they write a found it log right after having obtained the ok by the cache owner and at a time when the cache has not yet been maintained.

 

Cezanne

Edited October 18, 2013 by cezanne

[+redsox_mark]

What I wrote about is the increasing pressure on owners to answer positively to requests for logging a found it when the cache is not there any longer.

This is more and more becoming to be an expectation and if a cache owner acts differently, more and more cachers react annoyed.

 

 

I've not seen it myself, but imagine that this will happen here too. If it becomes more common for an owner to make such an offer, then cachers might start to expect it and be annoyed when a different owner refuses.

 

The way I've generally seen it logged is:

 

DNF logged on Oct 1

Cache replaced on Oct 5

On Oct 6, cacher who raised the DNF either changes their DNF to find, or posts a separate found log on Oct 1, or posts a found log on Oct 6. Yes this does impact the history or the order "found".

 

Personally: I don't ask for this, and I don't offer it as a cache owner. If someone asked me for it I would say OK.

[Clan Riffster]

I do not agree that the cache owners are to be blamed. I guess that many cachers offer log permission because they want to be kind and do not want to end up in debates and being blamed to be unkind and to take a game too honest. I feel strong enough for such debate, most of the cachers around do not or do not feel that it is worth and so they simply answer with yes and also gradually change their attitude and then regard it as normal to log a "found it" even if nothing was to be found.

I gotta say, it sure sounds like you're blaming the cache owners.

 

they want to be kind

Cache owner clearly to blame.

do not want to end up in debates

Cache owner clearly to blame.

being blamed to be unkind

Cache owner clearly to blame.

and to take a game too honest.

Cache owner clearly to blame.

I feel strong enough for such debate, most of the cachers around do not

Cache owner clearly to blame.

or do not feel that it is worth

Cache owner clearly to blame.

and so they simply answer with yes

Cache owner clearly to blame.

and also gradually change their attitude

Cache owner clearly to blame.

and then regard it as normal to log a "found it" even if nothing was to be found.

Cache owner clearly to blame.

 

Just sayin'

[4wheelin_fool]

I do not agree that the cache owners are to be blamed. I guess that many cachers offer log permission because they want to be kind and do not want to end up in debates and being blamed to be unkind and to take a game too honest. I feel strong enough for such debate, most of the cachers around do not or do not feel that it is worth and so they simply answer with yes and also gradually change their attitude and then regard it as normal to log a "found it" even if nothing was to be found.

I gotta say, it sure sounds like you're blaming the cache owners.

 

they want to be kind

Cache owner clearly to blame.

do not want to end up in debates

Cache owner clearly to blame.

being blamed to be unkind

Cache owner clearly to blame.

and to take a game too honest.

Cache owner clearly to blame.

I feel strong enough for such debate, most of the cachers around do not

Cache owner clearly to blame.

or do not feel that it is worth

Cache owner clearly to blame.

and so they simply answer with yes

Cache owner clearly to blame.

and also gradually change their attitude

Cache owner clearly to blame.

and then regard it as normal to log a "found it" even if nothing was to be found.

Cache owner clearly to blame.

 

Just sayin'

 

That's how people react when they are outnumbered. The more that join in, the more likely it will become more popular. You have an angry mob looting a store. Are you going to blame the shopkeeper, even if he has a shotgun?

[+tozainamboku]

That's how people react when they are outnumbered. The more that join in, the more likely it will become more popular. You have an angry mob looting a store. Are you going to blame the shopkeeper, even if he has a shotgun?

I don't understand the analogy. I think Cezanne's point is that cache owners don't delete these finds for a variety of reasons. That leads some cachers to believe that this is not only acceptable but common practice. At that point if a cache owner deletes the log they get a reputation for being a stick-in-the-mud who doesn't get that it's only a game and for being draconian in forcing someone to use a DNF when they didn't find the cache. At that point even cache owners who would have deleted fotologs stop doing so.

 

Should we blame the cache owners who allowed it to begin with? Should we blame the cache owner who have decide it's not worth the angst to delete the logs now?

 

I think that Groundspeak knows that people are motivated by silly things like smileys and souvenirs. This motivation happens regardless of whether you get the smiley or souvenir for accomplishing some significant task or if you get it just for trying. Individuals will claim the credit when they have done something they are comfortable taking the credit for. If 90% of geocachers log finds for looking for a cache and deciding it must be missing, or claim credit for looking once the owner confirms the cache is missing, for the most part, that still allows the 10% who insist on finding caches or the 1% who insist on signing logs the opportunity to log a DNF or a note. The one issue I have with fotologs is that cache owners many use them to shirk maintenance responsibilities. This basically says you can have active cache listings that don't meet the minimum requirement for the 10% who believe you must find something.

 

So I do blame cache owners - but only those who use the fotolog as a way to avoid maintenance.

[Clan Riffster]

You have an angry mob looting a store.

Are you going to blame the shopkeeper, even if he has a shotgun?

Uh... What? I suppose, with enough tweaking, we could adjust this to match the conversation.

So, suppose you are a shopkeeper. A 15 year old walks in, grabs a case of beer, and walks out, making a rude, single finger gesture to you. You do nothing. Not even calling the cops. You just shrug. The next day, he comes back and steals another case of beer. Again, you do nothing. Eventually, his buddies figure out what's up, and they pop in, one at a time, stealing beer. Over the course of the month, you lose 80 bajillion dollars to multiple, though individual, acts of theft. Then you call the cops. I would certainly point out that you allowed this to happen.

[+FunnyNose]

Noticed this cache today: GC37C0K.

Last legitimately found 9/9/2012. The area seems to have been re-landscaped. It's had 18 DNFs, 4 NMs, and got an NA today. Six cachers have claimed a find by posting a photo of the area. Owner not on-line since 1/12/13.

"Finds" in July, August and September make a cacher think the cache is still there. Fotologging seems popular in some areas, and with some geocachers.

A sad commentary on what geocaching has turned into.

 

From the time you first posted about this cache 3 more fotologgers have claimed a find on it.. Very sad...

[Clan Riffster]

Noticed this cache today: GC37C0K.

Last legitimately found 9/9/2012. The area seems to have been re-landscaped. It's had 18 DNFs, 4 NMs, and got an NA today. Six cachers have claimed a find by posting a photo of the area. Owner not on-line since 1/12/13.

"Finds" in July, August and September make a cacher think the cache is still there. Fotologging seems popular in some areas, and with some geocachers.

A sad commentary on what geocaching has turned into.

 

From the time you first posted about this cache 3 more fotologgers have claimed a find on it.. Very sad...

Disgraceful!

An outrage!

They should be flogged!

Publicly!

With rotting lemming carcasses!

[/sarcasm]

[+FunnyNose]

Noticed this cache today: GC37C0K.

Last legitimately found 9/9/2012. The area seems to have been re-landscaped. It's had 18 DNFs, 4 NMs, and got an NA today. Six cachers have claimed a find by posting a photo of the area. Owner not on-line since 1/12/13.

"Finds" in July, August and September make a cacher think the cache is still there. Fotologging seems popular in some areas, and with some geocachers.

A sad commentary on what geocaching has turned into.

 

From the time you first posted about this cache 3 more fotologgers have claimed a find on it.. Very sad...

Disgraceful!

An outrage!

They should be flogged!

Publicly!

With rotting lemming carcasses!

[/sarcasm]

 

Maybe if you understood the issue better you wouldn't be giving such flippant responses.

[Clan Riffster]

Noticed this cache today: GC37C0K.

Last legitimately found 9/9/2012. The area seems to have been re-landscaped. It's had 18 DNFs, 4 NMs, and got an NA today. Six cachers have claimed a find by posting a photo of the area. Owner not on-line since 1/12/13.

"Finds" in July, August and September make a cacher think the cache is still there. Fotologging seems popular in some areas, and with some geocachers.

A sad commentary on what geocaching has turned into.

 

From the time you first posted about this cache 3 more fotologgers have claimed a find on it.. Very sad...

Disgraceful!

An outrage!

They should be flogged!

Publicly!

With rotting lemming carcasses!

[/sarcasm]

 

Maybe if you understood the issue better you wouldn't be giving such flippant responses.

Oh?

Please, enlighten me.

I would love to here how three bogus logs reaches the emotional status of "Very sad".

Perhaps from the perspective of someone who is not a drama queen?

[+Sagefox]

Oh? Please, enlighten me.I would love to here how three bogus logs reaches the emotional status of "Very sad".

 

Looks like the cache has been missing for 11 months and 9 photologged it while 21 dnfed. I think that qualifies as a bit sad.

 

I don't recall too many caches with 30 dnfs so it must be in a popular visitor place.

 

Now someone has come to the rescue and placed a container, likely very similar to the original. They say there are not many caches in BA so this replacement will be quite welcomed by future finders. I hope the reviewer lets it live.

[+wmpastor]

Noticed this cache today: GC37C0K.

Last legitimately found 9/9/2012. The area seems to have been re-landscaped. It's had 18 DNFs, 4 NMs, and got an NA today. Six cachers have claimed a find by posting a photo of the area. Owner not on-line since 1/12/13.

"Finds" in July, August and September make a cacher think the cache is still there. Fotologging seems popular in some areas, and with some geocachers.

A sad commentary on what geocaching has turned into.

 

From the time you first posted about this cache 3 more fotologgers have claimed a find on it.. Very sad...

Disgraceful!

An outrage!

They should be flogged!

Publicly!

With rotting lemming carcasses!

[/sarcasm]

 

Maybe if you understood the issue better you wouldn't be giving such flippant responses.

Oh?

Please, enlighten me.

I would love to here how three bogus logs reaches the emotional status of "Very sad".

Perhaps from the perspective of someone who is not a drama queen?

When people start armchair photologging (taking a photo of a photo of GZ from home) and claiming a find, that's when those lemming carcasses get put into action! Then it's life or death for the sport!

[Clan Riffster]

Oh? Please, enlighten me.I would love to here how three bogus logs reaches the emotional status of "Very sad".

 

Looks like the cache has been missing for 11 months and 9 photologged it while 21 dnfed. I think that qualifies as a bit sad.

I think even one photolog qualifies as a bit sad.

But in my opinion, cheesy logs never reach the point of very sad.

I was hoping the dude with the sniffles could help me "understand".

 

I don't recall too many caches with 30 dnfs so it must be in a popular visitor place.

 

Now someone has come to the rescue and placed a container, likely very similar to the original. They say there are not many caches in BA so this replacement will be quite welcomed by future finders. I hope the reviewer lets it live.

I haven't seen the cache page, so I'll have to take your word for the logs.

Did the owner not respond after 11 months of a missing cache?

And now we have another cheesy practice, the ignoble throw down?

Looks like an "NA" would be more appropriate than a photolog.

[+FunnyNose]

Oh? Please, enlighten me. I would love to hear (corrected spelling from original quote hear not here) how three bogus logs reaches the emotional status of "Very sad".

 

South America seems to be a hotbed of fotologging. Here is a sampling of fotologged caches and a couple throw down caches. This is just a small sampling of caches near the city center of a few areas that I have recently been to.

 

http://coord.info/GC37C0K

http://coord.info/GC1QAA8

http://coord.info/GC3C0A3

http://coord.info/GC37W4V

http://coord.info/GC3Q00R

http://coord.info/GC2Z96C

http://coord.info/GC16W2Z

http://coord.info/GC3F6H2

http://coord.info/GC2ZQG8

http://coord.info/GC1K2A0

http://coord.info/GC2N944

http://coord.info/GC22RK6

http://coord.info/GC3HFHR

http://coord.info/GC39RK6

http://coord.info/GC39X5X

http://coord.info/GC1R6W4

 

Now someone has come to the rescue and placed a container, likely very similar to the original. They say there are not many caches in BA so this replacement will be quite welcomed by future finders. I hope the reviewer lets it live.

 

I don’t think throw downs are the answer either as it perpetuates irresponsible cache owner behavior.

[+Sharks-N-Beans]

This is funny...

Not sure how to post the picture

...Can we discuss if failing to properly log the photo counts as a fotolog?

[4wheelin_fool]

You have an angry mob looting a store.

Are you going to blame the shopkeeper, even if he has a shotgun?

Uh... What? I suppose, with enough tweaking, we could adjust this to match the conversation.

So, suppose you are a shopkeeper. A 15 year old walks in, grabs a case of beer, and walks out, making a rude, single finger gesture to you. You do nothing. Not even calling the cops. You just shrug. The next day, he comes back and steals another case of beer. Again, you do nothing. Eventually, his buddies figure out what's up, and they pop in, one at a time, stealing beer. Over the course of the month, you lose 80 bajillion dollars to multiple, though individual, acts of theft. Then you call the cops. I would certainly point out that you allowed this to happen.

 

There is a big difference between allowing it to happen and being responsible. The photologger is responsible for their own actions more than the cache owner. A kid steals a pack of gum and the shopkeeper does nothing. He returns a few days later and grabs a bottle of pop, and the shopkeeper decides to have a talk with him the next time he comes in. The third time he grabs a case of beer and runs out, so he calls the cops and ClanRiffster arrives and says its his fault? Sorry, the kid is responsible, just as any photologger would be.

[+jellis]

This behavior I see turning into Virtuals without signing the logs. Just standing at GZ doesn't mean they found it. If they didn't sign it how does the CO know they really found it. It may have been an evil hide. It seems these type of cachers are only for the numbers and are getting way to lazy. Like they are bending the rules til they break.

[+jellis]

You have an angry mob looting a store.

Are you going to blame the shopkeeper, even if he has a shotgun?

Uh... What? I suppose, with enough tweaking, we could adjust this to match the conversation.

So, suppose you are a shopkeeper. A 15 year old walks in, grabs a case of beer, and walks out, making a rude, single finger gesture to you. You do nothing. Not even calling the cops. You just shrug. The next day, he comes back and steals another case of beer. Again, you do nothing. Eventually, his buddies figure out what's up, and they pop in, one at a time, stealing beer. Over the course of the month, you lose 80 bajillion dollars to multiple, though individual, acts of theft. Then you call the cops. I would certainly point out that you allowed this to happen.

 

There is a big difference between allowing it to happen and being responsible. The photologger is responsible for their own actions more than the cache owner. A kid steals a pack of gum and the shopkeeper does nothing. He returns a few days later and grabs a bottle of pop, and the shopkeeper decides to have a talk with him the next time he comes in. The third time he grabs a case of beer and runs out, so he calls the cops and ClanRiffster arrives and says its his fault? Sorry, the kid is responsible, just as any photologger would be.

I believe if the CO deleted the log right off then at least these cachers would avoid finding any more of his/hers caches. If more did this then they would be less for them to try. They would have to find COs no longer active. Then if anyone cared would get GS involved.

[+Don_J]

You have an angry mob looting a store.

Are you going to blame the shopkeeper, even if he has a shotgun?

Uh... What? I suppose, with enough tweaking, we could adjust this to match the conversation.

So, suppose you are a shopkeeper. A 15 year old walks in, grabs a case of beer, and walks out, making a rude, single finger gesture to you. You do nothing. Not even calling the cops. You just shrug. The next day, he comes back and steals another case of beer. Again, you do nothing. Eventually, his buddies figure out what's up, and they pop in, one at a time, stealing beer. Over the course of the month, you lose 80 bajillion dollars to multiple, though individual, acts of theft. Then you call the cops. I would certainly point out that you allowed this to happen.

 

There is a big difference between allowing it to happen and being responsible. The photologger is responsible for their own actions more than the cache owner. A kid steals a pack of gum and the shopkeeper does nothing. He returns a few days later and grabs a bottle of pop, and the shopkeeper decides to have a talk with him the next time he comes in. The third time he grabs a case of beer and runs out, so he calls the cops and ClanRiffster arrives and says its his fault? Sorry, the kid is responsible, just as any photologger would be.

 

I'm not buying that. If I no longer have an actual physical cache and pretty much just have a cache listing that I am allowing people to post photos to in lieu of finding an actual cache, then I'm as much a part of the problem as the people doing the fake logging.

 

Keeping with the shopkeeper analogy, I would see it more as a shopkeeper knowingly selling alcohol to a minor. Both are guilty of a crime.

[Clan Riffster]

South America seems to be a hotbed of fotologging. Here is a sampling of fotologged caches

Awesome. You found many examples of cheesy logging practices.

I was kinda hoping you would show me how they reached the emotive state of "very sad".

[Clan Riffster]

You have an angry mob looting a store.

Are you going to blame the shopkeeper, even if he has a shotgun?

Uh... What? I suppose, with enough tweaking, we could adjust this to match the conversation.

So, suppose you are a shopkeeper. A 15 year old walks in, grabs a case of beer, and walks out, making a rude, single finger gesture to you. You do nothing. Not even calling the cops. You just shrug. The next day, he comes back and steals another case of beer. Again, you do nothing. Eventually, his buddies figure out what's up, and they pop in, one at a time, stealing beer. Over the course of the month, you lose 80 bajillion dollars to multiple, though individual, acts of theft. Then you call the cops. I would certainly point out that you allowed this to happen.

 

There is a big difference between allowing it to happen and being responsible. The photologger is responsible for their own actions more than the cache owner. A kid steals a pack of gum and the shopkeeper does nothing. He returns a few days later and grabs a bottle of pop, and the shopkeeper decides to have a talk with him the next time he comes in. The third time he grabs a case of beer and runs out, so he calls the cops and ClanRiffster arrives and says its his fault? Sorry, the kid is responsible, just as any photologger would be.

Sorry. Once you went so far south with your analogy as to compare a smattering of people practicing cheesy logging practices with a riotous flash mob bent on looting, I had to stretch my comparison in an equally absurd direction. I assumed you had picked up on that. Just to clarify, and to try and get this conversation somewhat back to reality; If a few people practice cheesy logging practices, such as throw downs, leap frogging and/or photologging, that's on the seeker. If a cache owner blatantly refuses to do the job they promised to do when they submitted their cache for publication, (log maintenance), that's on the owner, as much as on the finder.

[+KC2WI]

I would not claim a find if I did not find an actual cache. However if I find a cache that has an unsignable log (wet, full, etc.), then I found the cache. I will log it as Found not DNF, because I found it. The only time I *might* consider 'fotologging' and claiming a find is if I'm pretty sure I found the remnants of a damaged cache and send a picture and/or description to the CO who confirms that I found what was left of the cache. So far that situation has not come up.

[4wheelin_fool]

You have an angry mob looting a store.

Are you going to blame the shopkeeper, even if he has a shotgun?

Uh... What? I suppose, with enough tweaking, we could adjust this to match the conversation.

So, suppose you are a shopkeeper. A 15 year old walks in, grabs a case of beer, and walks out, making a rude, single finger gesture to you. You do nothing. Not even calling the cops. You just shrug. The next day, he comes back and steals another case of beer. Again, you do nothing. Eventually, his buddies figure out what's up, and they pop in, one at a time, stealing beer. Over the course of the month, you lose 80 bajillion dollars to multiple, though individual, acts of theft. Then you call the cops. I would certainly point out that you allowed this to happen.

 

Yes, and if an angry mob is looting a store the police will pretty much stand there and watch. They are not going to get involved unless they can effectively control them. Perhaps in a few large cities they may be able to call for reinforcement if there are people being injured. Otherwise they will do pretty much the same thing as the cache owner.

 

Yes, its clearly hyperbole, but it's par for the course. People are discussing this growing practice and calmly expressing dislike which is a rather normal response. Labeling them "drama queens" and posting expressive sarcasm takes it well out of context, especially since you do not like the practice either.

 

I can recall the emotional anti-micro threads from a few years back when they just started getting popular. Mushtang and Coyote Red would bicker constantly back and forth about it. Supposedly the micro spamming wasnt going to change anything, as people could filter them out and ignore them. But then people stopped trading and writing things in the logbook other than their username. Many people said that they write their detailed logs online now, but even that is changing to mostly copy and paste. It seems that the micro spamming did rub off on the game and sucked plenty of the fun out of it. Things don't change overnight, but they do change.

[+Sagefox]

I haven't seen the cache page, so I'll have to take your word for the logs.

Did the owner not respond after 11 months of a missing cache?

And now we have another cheesy practice, the ignoble throw down?

Looks like an "NA" would be more appropriate than a photolog.

 

I'm not 100% invested in this cache one way or the other except for OP's main subject: Photo-logging is carp! I totally agree.

 

But as to these other two items:

 

Case for throw down: This cacher replaced a micro with a micro, likely in the correct spot. 30 accounts could not find a container in a very small search area. Clearly the cache was missing and clearly it was a micro. It has been said that the area is lacking in caches and this seems to be confirmed because 25 accounts would not likely have searched for a micro with more than 5 dnfs if there were plenty of caches around.

 

This is only a throw down for one person. Future finders will be very pleased that the cache is back in action. I would easily and quickly replace a container in this situation for the good of the game though I would not (and do not) claim a find for it.

 

Archive: Always appropriate when a cache is missing or in very bad shape and the owner is not responding to repeated calls for help. But someone took an action here and now there is an viable container in place. No harm in letting a desired cache live on. Its day to die will eventually come but right now it's as good as new.

[Clan Riffster]

Labeling them "drama queens"...

Sorry. Just calling 'em like I see 'em.

Most cachers will agree that photologging, leap frogging and/or throw down caching are roughly equal on the cheesy cache logging practice meter. Only a handful will spew out nonsensical hyperbole about any of the above listed practices being "very sad". Therein lies your aforementioned drama queen.

[Clan Riffster]

Case for throw down:...

I should add that, my biggest problem with throw down caching is when it is done without the owners express consent, given prior to the throw down. If BillyBobNosePicker is hunting for "Another Crappy LPC", and can't find it, then calls the owner who both verifies it as missing and gives Billy permission to replace it, I'm okay with that. But if the owner no longer cares about caching, to the extent that they let "Another Crappy LPC" go missing for 11 months without making any effort to correct the problem, in my opinion, the proper course of action is to get that thing archived so someone who does care about the hobby can get a cache placed there.

[+Sagefox]

I should add that, my biggest problem with throw down caching is when it is done without the owners express consent...

 

But if the owner no longer cares about caching, to the extent that they let "Another Crappy LPC" go missing for 11 months without making any effort to correct the problem, in my opinion, the proper course of action is to get that thing archived so someone who does care about the hobby can get a cache placed there.

I mostly agree. I do use the NA option a few times each year.

 

Exception: I have no problem with a cache like OPs example being replaced. People like this cache, and you could even say the need it. This comes under the heading of The Community Cares about this cache and has made it viable again.

 

Exception: I have no problem with throw-down LPC containers because I typically don't care about LPC containers, whether they live or die.

 

The issue here is the timing of a NA log. The longer people hesitate to post a NA the more likely a throw down will happen. A throw down makes the cache viable again whether the CO is active, or not.

[Clan Riffster]

Exception: I have no problem with a cache like OPs example being replaced.

People like this cache, and you could even say they need it.

Could be?

Again, I haven't seen the cache page, or visited the region, so I really can't comment on its overall quality. I'll assume for argument's sake that it is a stellar cache, probably because of the location, given the comments regarding the container being replaced. Would that change, if an active player hid a cache there? I'm not grasping the concept of need. Would the need be affected by a new cache being hidden by someone who will actually maintain it?

 

I have seen cases where the community decides to keep a cache alive, and I have no qualms with that. But the fact that it was missing for almost a year should indicate that the community really isn't all that interested in saving it. The ones I've seen, which are cared for by the community, are generally fixed after no more than a week.

[+Don_J]

I should add that, my biggest problem with throw down caching is when it is done without the owners express consent...

 

But if the owner no longer cares about caching, to the extent that they let "Another Crappy LPC" go missing for 11 months without making any effort to correct the problem, in my opinion, the proper course of action is to get that thing archived so someone who does care about the hobby can get a cache placed there.

I mostly agree. I do use the NA option a few times each year.

 

Exception: I have no problem with a cache like OPs example being replaced. People like this cache, and you could even say the need it. This comes under the heading of The Community Cares about this cache and has made it viable again.

 

Exception: I have no problem with throw-down LPC containers because I typically don't care about LPC containers, whether they live or die.

 

The issue here is the timing of a NA log. The longer people hesitate to post a NA the more likely a throw down will happen. A throw down makes the cache viable again whether the CO is active, or not.

 

Seriously? The community doesn't care. If they did, they would get the cache archived and place another so that it had an active owner that could maintain it. The fact is, the CO pretty much was the community and he's doesn't appear to very active any longer, so in this case, the "community" is made up of tourist that want to get a find in a country that is foreign to them. In this case, it's no different than a vacation cache at a tourist stop that continues for years because other tourist constantly replace the container.

 

As far as the photo loggers, I see them as too cheap to do a throwdown

[+Sagefox]

...The fact is, the CO pretty much was the community and he doesn't appear to be very active any longer, so in this case, the "community" is made up of tourists that want to get a find in a country that is foreign to them.

Pretty much reminds me of back in the days when the vacationers and other travelers helped populate the rural areas with caches. Our former home county, an area larger than the state of Delaware, only had caches placed by vacationers and once I got in the game I maintained those caches on the tourist half of the county so other vacationers would have something to look for (in addition to our cache placements).

 

And when those later vacationers placed new caches I maintained them too. Vacationing cachers were always happy to come to our tourist destination because there were plenty of caches in addition to the natural beauty of the rural coastal area. After several years a local cacher community sprouted up and became self-sustaining and vacation caches were no longer needed.

 

...it's no different than a vacation cache at a tourist stop that continues for years because other tourist constantly replace the container.

And what was the harm in that? As long as the container is viable does it really matter who replaced it? When it goes missing and people no longer replace it then it gets archived - problem solved!

Edited October 31, 2013 by Team Sagefox

[Clan Riffster]

And what was the harm in that?

I would say the only problem is the 11 months it sat unmaintained.

Again, I'll stress that I'm not adamantly opposed to community maintained caches.

But 11 months is way too long to wait. Now that it's viable again, I have no complaints.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Swayambhunath

 

Looks like the container has been missing for over a year.

 

There is a lot of monkeys around the place, which can be some of the worst mugglers. Hence, logging of the cache is done by uploading a photo of the engraved stone placed at the coordinates.

[+FunnyNose]

Swayambhunath

 

Looks like the container has been missing for over a year.

 

There is a lot of monkeys around the place, which can be some of the worst mugglers. Hence, logging of the cache is done by uploading a photo of the engraved stone placed at the coordinates.

 

SAD SAD SAD !! I plan on going to that area in April of 2015.

 

Since there is a viable cache there that people can Fotolog Others who may visit the area on a regular basis or locals won't have the motivation to place a real cache there.

 

I would rather leave a country uncolored than to cheat and fotolog a cache.

[+jellis]

So we are back to Virtuals? Wow maybe I can do that too?

[+JPreto]

This is just pathetic! And seeing so many cachers with a lot of "finds" makes me wonder how many "finds" they have at all. Sad.

 

I agree with that. Seems to cheapen geocaching. Sad.

 

No it´s much more simple than that, they just have problems in distinguishing Geocaching from Waymarking!!!!

[+GilkerscleughCachers]

I only acknowledge a photo log on any of my caches if they have forgotten their pen so couldn't sign the logbook. Everybody forgets their pen at one point I'm pretty sure. The photo of the logbook and container is usually deleted afterwards if I feel it's too revealing.

[+K13]

Swayambhunath

 

Looks like the container has been missing for over a year.

 

There is a lot of monkeys around the place, which can be some of the worst mugglers. Hence, logging of the cache is done by uploading a photo of the engraved stone placed at the coordinates.

 

That has been rectified.

Archive 05/14/2014 Archived, as owner is encouraging virtual logs instead of performing the promised maintenance of his cache.

 

I wonder how many people will log it now? It's sort of like an archived Virtual.....

 

 

[+worstcaster]

I've sent a picture of the cache container and logbook as proof if I forgot a pen. The guidelines say you must sign but if I opened the actual cache I am personally satisfied I found it. If I fail to find the cache, but am fairly sure I found the hide site, I will take a picture. The picture is emailed to the CO, not to claim an undeserved smiley, but the aid the CO in deciding if a maintenance trip is needed. The claim the smiley for that cache I would have to return to the site and find the cache.