Should CO's Delete False Find Logs?

7.5k · November 30, 2013

If someone else has a different way of playing, who am I to say no to them? I supply the cache, and they have fun finding it however they feel. Unless it was a really tough hide, I wouldn't be worried.

For example, their find log might make it look like a cache is there when it isn't.

That's true. However, since it's equally true for every single cache on the planet, this concern rates naught more than a "Meh". Any cache can disappear betwixt the last guy to find it and your find. I suppose, for those numbers oriented cachers, who don't feel as if they have succeeded at this hobby unless they walk away with a smilie, this might be a noteworthy concern. They might pop off with some silliness about how their 'time was wasted'. Frankly, I don't see it. I enjoy the other details involved in this hobby, such as plotting a route to the best parking, getting to ground zero and conducting a hunt. These are fun, for me. So, if said hunt ends in a DNF, I won't be singing the blues.

The suggestion was that false logs are a personal matter that don't affect other players. I explained why that's not the case.

I don't consider DNFs a waste of time, but, yes, I do consider it a waste of time and no fun to go looking for a cache that I can tell from the logs is missing, so I don't. If you enjoy doing that, please continue to do so, but don't encourage others to lie in logs so that I have to do it, too.

8k · December 1, 2013

Maybe we could start a thread listing those things we hate 'more than searching for a cache that's not there'?

I'll start: (In no particular order)

Violence against helpless victims.

Chiggers.

Tyranny.

Brussel sprouts.

I agree. Except for Brussels sprouts. I like Brussels sprouts - I especially like Brussels sprouts ice cream :mmraspberry:

But I also don't like being fooled. I don't think that it's DNFs that annoys billdavidsaurus so much, but instead it's being fooled into looking for a cache you might have skipped except for the bogus log. Since I rarely look at the last log to see if it is a DNF before heading out, I'm not effected when there is a bogus log. But I am aware that some people will eliminate caches with a DNF and no more recent find, or even caches that just haven't been found in a while.

Now you could argue that avoiding looking for caches because they had a recent DNF or that haven't been found in a while is denying yourself the opportunity to find a more difficult cache or one that isn't found regularly. But I could also point to people who are denying themselves the opportunity to try Brussels sprouts ice cream.

7.5k · December 1, 2013

Now you could argue that avoiding looking for caches because they had a recent DNF or that haven't been found in a while is denying yourself the opportunity to find a more difficult cache or one that isn't found regularly. But I could also point to people who are denying themselves the opportunity to try Brussels sprouts ice cream.

Well, it's the opposite we're talking about: a cache with a few DNFs but a recent found log that makes one think that there's been exactly the type of hard earned find that you're describing when, in fact, there hasn't.

And naturally few of us would actually be fooled by a false log, but the point is that by allowing false logs to stand and saying that they're just a matter of personal taste, we encourage people to continue the practice, making it more likely that once it a while, false information that shouldn't have been posted will lead someone astray.

9.3k · December 1, 2013

...but don't encourage others to lie in logs...

Fibbing is not something I advocate. Deliberately misleading anyone, be it the cache owner, or future seekers, is pretty foul. I have very little tolerance for the folks who log finds from the comfort of their recliners. As such, I think it's safe to say I won't be 'encouraging others to lie' in their logs. I was focusing more on those folks who wander in the gray areas. I'll post a few examples of logs which, by my personal definition, would not be logged as finds, but which, by their content, would only fool the densest cache owner into believing everything was peachy at ground zero.

1: Found It - I searched for 20 minutes. Didn't find a thing. It's not where the hint suggests.

(Probably picked the wrong log option in the drop down menu)

2: Found It - Got to GZ, saw the cache way up a tree. Couldn't reach it.

(For me, this would be a DNF or a Note)

3: Found It - I couldn't open the cache. It was rusted shut.

(For me, this would be a DNF or a Note)

4: Found It - Found the cache. Forgot my pen.

(For me, this would be a DNF or a Note)

5: Found It - Saw the cache, but couldn't get it due to muggles.

(For me, this would be a DNF or a Note)

6: Found It - Greetings from Germany! :lol:

For me, though each of these examples are pretty lame displays of numbers padding, I find it difficult to get worked up over them enough to hit the 'Delete' button. (Well, maybe # 6) To each their own. :unsure:

7.5k · December 2, 2013

For me, though each of these examples are pretty lame displays of numbers padding, I find it difficult to get worked up over them enough to hit the 'Delete' button.

Some CO's find it difficulty to get worked up enough about a leaking container to go replace it.

9.3k · December 2, 2013

For me, though each of these examples are pretty lame displays of numbers padding, I find it difficult to get worked up over them enough to hit the 'Delete' button.

Some CO's find it difficulty to get worked up enough about a leaking container to go replace it.

An interesting comparison. In all my years of caching I have never seen a cache owner get worked up about a leaking container. I honestly can't even imagine someone doing so. Is this fairly prevalent in your area? Of all the caches I've known about which needed some TLC, the owners pretty much fall into three categories. Those who see that there is an issue, and fix it in a timely manner, as their schedule and resources allow. Those who procrastinate until a Reviewer gets involved, then fixes it. And, those who seemingly couldn't care less, and can't even be bothered to post a note explaining their delay.

7.5k · December 2, 2013

For me, though each of these examples are pretty lame displays of numbers padding, I find it difficult to get worked up over them enough to hit the 'Delete' button.

Some CO's find it difficulty to get worked up enough about a leaking container to go replace it.

An interesting comparison. In all my years of caching I have never seen a cache owner get worked up about a leaking container. I honestly can't even imagine someone doing so.

I was trying to use "worked up" in the same sense you were, but apparently I have failed. So allow me to rephrase my point in less flowery language: cleaning up false logs and replacing leaking containers are both things that conscientious COs should do whenever necessary.

9.3k · December 2, 2013

cleaning up false logs and replacing leaking containers are both things that conscientious COs should do whenever necessary.

Of course! Not only is it good manners, it's an integral part of the guidelines we all agree to adhere to every time we place a cache. Unfortunately, some rather control minded players use these log maintenance guidelines as an excuse to delete logs which very few folks would define as "bogus", (though many would agree were lame), such as someone forgetting their pen. I don't think anyone in here would disagree that out and out armchair logging is both false, and bogus, subject to deletion. It's only the gray areas that warrant debate.

Edited December 2, 2013 by Clan Riffster

7.5k · December 2, 2013

cleaning up false logs and replacing leaking containers are both things that conscientious COs should do whenever necessary.

Of course! Not only is it good manners, it's an integral part of the guidelines we all agree to adhere to every time we place a cache.

OK, that's settled. Everyone should delete false logs.

Unfortunately, some rather control minded players use these log maintenance guidelines as an excuse to delete logs which very few folks would define as "bogus", (though many would agree were lame), such as someone forgetting their pen. I don't think anyone in here would disagree that out and out armchair logging is both false, and bogus, subject to deletion. It's only the gray areas that warrant debate.

It might warrant debate, but it's off topic here, which is what confused me. I thought you implied you would never investigate whether an on-line log agreed with the physical log -- freshly roasted sand spurs and such -- so I thought you were arguing universally against deleting false logs. It didn't help that you listed a couple logs that were clearly false while suggesting you wouldn't be bothered enough to delete them. I'm sorry I misunderstood you.

9.3k · December 2, 2013

cleaning up false logs and replacing leaking containers are both things that conscientious COs should do whenever necessary.

Of course! Not only is it good manners, it's an integral part of the guidelines we all agree to adhere to every time we place a cache.

OK, that's settled. Everyone should delete false logs.

Unfortunately, some rather control minded players use these log maintenance guidelines as an excuse to delete logs which very few folks would define as "bogus", (though many would agree were lame), such as someone forgetting their pen. I don't think anyone in here would disagree that out and out armchair logging is both false, and bogus, subject to deletion. It's only the gray areas that warrant debate.

It might warrant debate, but it's off topic here, which is what confused me. I thought you implied you would never investigate whether an on-line log agreed with the physical log -- freshly roasted sand spurs and such -- so I thought you were arguing universally against deleting false logs. It didn't help that you listed a couple logs that were clearly false while suggesting you wouldn't be bothered enough to delete them. I'm sorry I misunderstood you.

Any misunderstanding should be laid at my feet, not yours, as I have highly contradictory views regarding cache logging. My suggestion to delete bogus logs was just me parroting the company lines. Specifically, 'This is what Groundspeak expects of us, so, this is what you, (the collective), should do. When I offer advice to a general audience, I like to lead with what TPTB believes is proper, even if I don't rigidly adhere to those standards myself.

For instance, for caches I seek, I am entirely rigid. Unless my moniker is in the logbook, I don't claim it as a find. No exceptions, save one, where I deliberately did not sign a log, (with the owner's consent), just to test a theory. I don't actively promote this style of logging, as these are my rules, not Groundspeak's. For caches I own, I am way more liberal. If you, (the collective again), did something that you feel equates a find, I am unwilling to argue with you. I might roll my eyes, but I won't hit the delete button. Like my personal cache seeking criteria, I don't actively promote this method, again, because it's not the method TPTB supports.

It's rather confusing for anyone not in my head, so don't blame yourself for misunderstanding my contradictory babbling. As to being off topic, I disagree. The topic was whether or not we, as cache owners, should delete false logs. Defining what constitutes a false log is important for this discussion. As you pointed out, of the six examples I listed, two were pretty much unarguable examples of false logs. (Though, I probably wouldn't delete them) The other four are in the gray area. Some frequent posters to this forum would call all six examples obviously false logs, and suggest they be deleted.

We should define where the line is, if we wish to have a meaningful debate.

8k · December 2, 2013

We should define where the line is, if we wish to have a meaningful debate.

What's to define?

For the puritans it is simple, If you haven't signed the physical log, then any online Found it log is bogus. By Groundspeak's cache maintenance guidelines, the cache owner should delete it.

For the rest of the world it is far more complicated; not only where you draw the line but also just how much effort do you spend checking? For many people people it comes down to this being a simple game, with no actual reward for having a find count inflated with caches you didn't find. Most of what we are talking about are people who just draw the line a little outside of what the cache owner's view is. Usually these people really did find something; snd in other cases they justify a find log because of some extraordinary circumstance. Cache owners can certainly delete the log, if they want, but the fact is that most cache owners don't bother. Some may actually want to keep these logs so they and others can laugh at the silliness of the claim.

The more interesting debate is whether or not bogus logs cause harm to other geocahers. Anecdotal evidence tells us that some people have gone out to look for caches they may have otherwise not bothered loading into their GPS. However, the claims of wasting time or money because of this undesired hunt aren't very convincing as caches may or may not be present regardless of the bogus log. In other words, you always have the opportunity for a DNF on cache, and while you can eliminate certain caches where the odds of DNF are higher, you can never gurarentee the find. It's easy to blame your DNF on the bogus log, but in reality you don't really know if you were tricked into looking for a cache that is not there or if you just didn't find it. (And if you did find the cache and were able to confirm the suspicious log really didn't sign the physical cache log you will have a good story to tell).

9.3k · December 3, 2013

We should define where the line is, if we wish to have a meaningful debate.

What's to define?

Sorry. I thought I made that clear. For us, as a group, to decide whether or not an unsigned physical log, corresponding to a digital "Found It" log on a cache page, should be labeled as either 'False' or 'Bogus', thus rendering it subject to deletion, we should first define where the line is betwixt bogus and acceptable but cheesy. What, exactly is a 'False' log. In order to answer the OP, we should have an answer to that question.

The uber anal will tell you if the logbook isn't signed, the log gets deleted. EVERY TIME!

The uber hippie will tell you no log should be deleted, dude. It's all good. Abide, man.

3.3k · December 3, 2013

I recently had to delete a problem found it log and a note because the cacher made a boo boo using an IPhone and could not figure out how to fix the error. I tried to help but the request from the cacher was for me to delete the logs because the cacher couldn't figure out how to do it.

1.4k · December 3, 2013

Clan Riffster That one post cracked me up! As for your list I have done number 5, 2 or 3 times but put it in my log and I think said you can delete if you want. We never use one we didn't actually sign for our streak.

Now to the important part as a CO of over 100 active caches we need to clear this up! Brussels sprouts are awesome! If steamed right to were they are nice and tender with some butter and salt and pepper. I think the problem is when some try to steam them in the microwave and it also cooks them or they steam them and they are not completely done and are still kind of hard. If done right they are great! I would give them a favorite point!

2.6k · December 3, 2013

The more interesting debate is whether or not bogus logs cause harm to other geocahers.

Maybe not "harm", but it can delay a cache owner addressing a possibly missing cache.

For example, I see a couple of DNFs logs on a cache of mine which is easy to find and doesn't normally get DNFs. I'm thinking I should check it. Then someone comes along and logs a find. I assume it is there, so my checking it is no longer a priority. But then some time later I get another DNF or two. This time I check and find it really is missing.

Now I can't tell for sure that the "found it" log was "bogus". So I won't delete it. Maybe it was there and the first DNFs couldn't find it, then it was found, and then later it went missing. More likely that the "found" log was bogus, but I can't prove that.

In my view a "bogus" log is one which either the cacher didn't find the cache at all, or didn't look for it. And I think they do some harm as they give false information to the owner.

A find where the cacher found the container but there was some reason they could not sign (no pen, container wouldn't open, log too wet, or they got chased by a bear) I don't consider bogus. But I would like the cacher to indicate if the reason for lack of signature was because of a cache issue I can deal with (e.g. wet log) so I can deal with it.

38.2k · December 3, 2013

For many people people it comes down to this being a simple game, with no actual reward for having a find count inflated with caches you didn't find.

You mean having events thrown in your honor, caches being placed in your honor, being awarded milestone geocoins or "golden" ammo boxes, having your name featured on the local geocaching websites, congratulatory threads in the forums here or on FB, etc, or the semi-celebrity status given to those with high find counts aren't rewards?

I've seen these all bestowed on people without regard to their find ethics. It seems to me that there is enough of a reward for padding find counts that it not only happens, it's become commonplace.

The more interesting debate is whether or not bogus logs cause harm to other geocahers.

Maybe not "harm", but it can delay a cache owner addressing a possibly missing cache.

For example, I see a couple of DNFs logs on a cache of mine which is easy to find and doesn't normally get DNFs. I'm thinking I should check it. Then someone comes along and logs a find. I assume it is there, so my checking it is no longer a priority. But then some time later I get another DNF or two. This time I check and find it really is missing.

Now I can't tell for sure that the "found it" log was "bogus". So I won't delete it. Maybe it was there and the first DNFs couldn't find it, then it was found, and then later it went missing. More likely that the "found" log was bogus, but I can't prove that.

In my view a "bogus" log is one which either the cacher didn't find the cache at all, or didn't look for it. And I think they do some harm as they give false information to the owner.

A find where the cacher found the container but there was some reason they could not sign (no pen, container wouldn't open, log too wet, or they got chased by a bear) I don't consider bogus. But I would like the cacher to indicate if the reason for lack of signature was because of a cache issue I can deal with (e.g. wet log) so I can deal with it.

I've been making this argument for years. Bogus logs can waste the time and money of other geocachers and that isn't harmless fun.

Edited December 3, 2013 by briansnat

9.3k · December 3, 2013

Bogus logs can waste the time and money of other geocachers.

Not defending bogus logs, but this struck me as an odd sentiment. I suppose, if I were a numbers oriented cacher, who only feels success if my find count increments by a +1 with every hunt, I might feel that a bogus log, causing me to decide to hunt for a cache which is not there, would result in me wasting time and money. However, since I enjoy all of the aspects of this hobby, to include getting to ground zero, and the actual hunt, almost as much as the find, any time I spend going for a missing cache is certainly not wasted.

Even if I were one of those numbers oriented cachers, and my sense of entitlement was so strong as to leave me feeling my time had been wasted, hunting for a missing cache, any angst I felt would, of necessity, need to be directed inward. Since I would be the one who ultimately decided to search for a cache based on one "Found It", following a string of DNFs, the fault would clearly be mine.

My official stance, if asked, is that cache owners should delete obviously bogus logs. But this is based on my belief in publicly supporting the guidelines, rather any notion of time being wasted.

Edited December 3, 2013 by Clan Riffster

7.5k · December 3, 2013

I suppose, if I were a numbers oriented cacher, who only feels success if my find count increments by a +1 with every hunt, I might feel that a bogus log, causing me to decide to hunt for a cache which is not there, would result in me wasting time and money. However, since I enjoy all of the aspects of this hobby, to include getting to ground zero, and the actual hunt, almost as much as the find, any time I spend going for a missing cache is certainly not wasted.

Are you saying that when you see a D2 geocache with 2 years of competent seekers logging DNFs, you'd still enjoying going to search for it? Most would consider that a waste of time. It's like driving to the movie theater to see a movie you know isn't playing anymore.

9.3k · December 3, 2013

I suppose, if I were a numbers oriented cacher, who only feels success if my find count increments by a +1 with every hunt, I might feel that a bogus log, causing me to decide to hunt for a cache which is not there, would result in me wasting time and money. However, since I enjoy all of the aspects of this hobby, to include getting to ground zero, and the actual hunt, almost as much as the find, any time I spend going for a missing cache is certainly not wasted.

Are you saying that when you see a D2 geocache with 2 years of competent seekers logging DNFs, you'd still enjoying going to search for it? Most would consider that a waste of time. It's like driving to the movie theater to see a movie you know isn't playing anymore.

I've never seen any cache, much less a D2, with two years of competent seekers posting DNFs. Not saying it can't happen, but I'd certainly be surprised at a D2 with two years of DNFs not getting archived. Hyperbole really isn't necessary here. Though, out of common courtesy, I'll answer your question. Since I have specifically sought out caches with, albeit shorter DNF strings, (enough to make me believe the cache was likely absent), and I thoroughly enjoyed both getting to ground zero, and searching for the cache, I would have to say, "Yes. Sounds like fun!"

With the possible exception of numbers oriented cachers, who simply cannot enjoy any cache attempt which does not result in that holiest of holies, the +1 mentioned earlier, why wouldn't anyone enjoy it? Because of my quirky caching aesthetics, I would be in an area I enjoy spending time in, and engaged in something challenging. Other than the missing smilie, what's not to love?

I'll admit I don't really grasp the mentality of numbers oriented cachers.

Isn't this game all about the location and the hunt?

7.5k · December 3, 2013

Are you saying that when you see a D2 geocache with 2 years of competent seekers logging DNFs, you'd still enjoying going to search for it? Most would consider that a waste of time. It's like driving to the movie theater to see a movie you know isn't playing anymore.

I've never seen any cache, much less a D2, with two years of competent seekers posting DNFs. Not saying it can't happen, but I'd certainly be surprised at a D2 with two years of DNFs not getting archived. Hyperbole really isn't necessary here.

It wasn't hyperbole, but simply an example designed to be clear. We could talk about a less obvious example not found for a lesser time, but then we might get distracted by a discussion of whether that lesser time was sufficient for us to be sure the cache was missing, and the point is to discuss cases in which we've concluded that the cache is missing, regardless of the criteria we use.

But here's an even easier example: your argument would equally well support someone publishing a cache description without actually placing a cache. You could go to the location and enjoy the hunt just as much as with a cache that used to be there but is now missing.

Though, out of common courtesy, I'll answer your question. Since I have specifically sought out caches with, albeit shorter DNF strings, (enough to make me believe the cache was likely absent), and I thoroughly enjoyed both getting to ground zero, and searching for the cache, I would have to say, "Yes. Sounds like fun!"

Really? Most people would consider looking for a cache that isn't there boring. Yes, they might decided to go somewhere because they want to go there, but they wouldn't go there because a missing cache that they will fail to find used to be there.

I'll admit I don't really grasp the mentality of numbers oriented cachers.

What you are missing isn't how numbers oriented cachers think, but rather why this issue has nothing to do with the numbers.

Isn't this game all about the location and the hunt?

The game isn't about the location because I can go to that location even if there's no cache there. That's called "taking a hike", and we can all agree that's fun as long as we can also agree that's not geocaching any more than driving to a store is geocaching simply because there are lamp posts in the parking lot. To be geocaching, it is about the hunt, and, to refer to my previous example again, is going to a theater to see a movie that's not playing any longer still "seeing a movie", or is it just a waste of time? You can still buy the popcorn. What's not to love?

9.3k · December 3, 2013

It wasn't hyperbole

Of course it's hyperbole. It's a textbook example of hyperbole. You took a situation which might actually exist, and exaggerated it to the point of absurdity.

and the point is to discuss cases in which we've concluded that the cache is missing

Actually, my example is of a cache which is likely missing. More exaggeration? To what point? Why not stick to the example given? If you find such a simple concept "distracting", I'm sorry. It certainly doesn't distract me. I would think that only the owner could conclude if the cache is missing. For the rest of us, we must fall back on probability.

I think most in here would agree that a D2, with an extended string of DNFs, is likely missing. Let's stick with that premise, rather than embracing absurdity.

your argument would equally well support someone publishing a cache description without actually placing a cache.

Had you bothered to read my "argument", you would know it supports no such thing. As I've stated often in the past, I support the Groundspeak guidelines. The cache you describe would be a clear violation of the guidelines. Stretching something which could happen, beyond the point of absurdity is... Wait... We've already covered that.

That being said, let's pretend that your absurd example actually occurred, and I set off to hunt for this non-existent cache. Would I enjoy the trip to ground zero? Presumably, since it's a cache I'm hunting, it's in an area which appealed to me. So, I would enjoy figuring out how to get to ground zero. This time spent would not be a waste. Then, there is the hunt itself. I enjoy this aspect of the game as well, so this time would not be wasted.

Really?

Yup. Really. Shocking, I know.

Most people would consider looking for a cache that isn't there boring.

How would they know the cache isn't there? Wouldn't that determination of fact best be reserved for the owner? Sure, we, as fairly seasoned players can make pretty good guesses, but in the end, guesses is all they are. I suppose that boredom is something which we all might experience, at some point during the hunt, as we continue to come up empty handed. But wouldn't a reasonable person stop looking once it stopped being fun? Up until it stops being fun, is that time really wasted? I've had a nice, pleasant hike, in an area I enjoy. I got to play with my GPSr, figuring out which trail to follow. I got to spend time hunting for a cache. That doesn't seem like wasted time to me.

What you are missing isn't how numbers oriented cachers think, but rather why this issue has nothing to do with the numbers.

As you've described it, this issue is all about numbers. A nice hike, playing with a GPSr, figuring out trails, and hunting for a cache is, according to you, a "waste of time", unless your hunt increases your find count.

With that attitude, I'm surprised you ever hunt for anything higher than a 1/1, newly placed, with no DNFs. We wouldn't want you wasting your time, right?

To be geocaching, it is about the hunt

Wait... I thought you suggested that an unsuccessful hunt was a waste of time. Now you are suggesting that the game is about the hunt?

is going to a theater to see a movie that's not playing any longer still "seeing a movie", or is it just a waste of time?

More hyperbole? (Sigh...)

With a cache, figuring out whether or not it is there is something we, as seekers, can only guess at. It is a little easier to determine if a particular movie is playing or not. If I wanted to see Apocalypse Now, and the theatre said it wasn't playing, then going there to see that particular movie would be a waste of time. However, if all I wanted was to watch a movie, and I wasn't real picky, then going there would not be a waste of time.

What's not to love?

Exactly.

8k · December 3, 2013

Are you saying that when you see a D2 geocache with 2 years of competent seekers logging DNFs, you'd still enjoying going to search for it? Most would consider that a waste of time. It's like driving to the movie theater to see a movie you know isn't playing anymore.

I've never seen any cache, much less a D2, with two years of competent seekers posting DNFs. Not saying it can't happen, but I'd certainly be surprised at a D2 with two years of DNFs not getting archived. Hyperbole really isn't necessary here.

It wasn't hyperbole, but simply an example designed to be clear. We could talk about a less obvious example not found for a lesser time, but then we might get distracted by a discussion of whether that lesser time was sufficient for us to be sure the cache was missing, and the point is to discuss cases in which we've concluded that the cache is missing, regardless of the criteria we use.

Seems to me a D2 that has a number of DNFs by competent seakers over 2 years should have been disabled some time ago. Perhaps the person to blame for wasting my time is the cache owner for not disabling the cache. I understand that life sometimes gets in the way and owners can't alway do maintenance on a cache right away, but how long does it take to temporarily disable a cache.

Cache owners certainly have the right to evaluate the finds/DNFs on their cache and decide it they need to do maintenance. Often, I assume, cache owners think the cache might be missing but are holding out for the possibility that the next cacher will find it. Sure that that next find might be a bogus log, but in my experience it is more likely a legitmate find. I've gone out an looked for caches I've DNF after a subsequent find most often, lo and behold, I find the cache. It isn't even a throwdown because it has the original log in it.

But here's an even easier example: your argument would equally well support someone publishing a cache description without actually placing a cache. You could go to the location and enjoy the hunt just as much as with a cache that used to be there but is now missing.

Why not. People do that with virtual caches and waymarks all the time. There have been cases of very difficult to find caches, that have never been found, where someone uses the argument that there really isn't a cache to find and post an NA. And there have been cases where the reviewer archived the cache becaus the owner doean't want to provide enoough information to "prove" there is a cache.

And to answer briansnat. Of course there are people who spend time boasting of their numbers and through events to honor one another for a milestone. It hasn't won anyone Geocacher of the Year. Numebers and stats are of course a motivation to cache more often and Groundspeak knows this. If it were that easy to determine when something is a bogus log there would not be much motivation to use them. Everyone could tell that someone's find count wasn't honest. The issue is that short of adopting a puritan view and deleting online logs just because you could find a name in the phisical log, it's impossible to detect anything but the most obvious bogus finds. Serial couch poatato logggers tend to eventually be caught. In the most egreesious cases, Groundspeak will even ban their account. I contend that the so call "numbers" cachers who go around congratulating each other are well aware the practices that some people will count as finds, Usually they will even indicate in the log itself that they logged a find under special circumstances. There doesn't seem to be an intent to decieve anyone. The fact that some people choose to blame these logs for "wasting" time looking or for forcing the cache owenr to forego maintenance, doese not really change that.

3.3k · December 3, 2013

For many people people it comes down to this being a simple game, with no actual reward for having a find count inflated with caches you didn't find.

You mean having events thrown in your honor, caches being placed in your honor, being awarded milestone geocoins or "golden" ammo boxes, having your name featured on the local geocaching websites, congratulatory threads in the forums here or on FB, etc, or the semi-celebrity status given to those with high find counts aren't rewards?

I've seen these all bestowed on people without regard to their find ethics. It seems to me that there is enough of a reward for padding find counts that it not only happens, it's become commonplace.

The more interesting debate is whether or not bogus logs cause harm to other geocahers.

You can't pad forum post counts, & I think passing 37, 715 posts warrants all of the above awards - especially when quality is high.

Maybe not "harm", but it can delay a cache owner addressing a possibly missing cache.

For example, I see a couple of DNFs logs on a cache of mine which is easy to find and doesn't normally get DNFs. I'm thinking I should check it. Then someone comes along and logs a find. I assume it is there, so my checking it is no longer a priority. But then some time later I get another DNF or two. This time I check and find it really is missing.

Now I can't tell for sure that the "found it" log was "bogus". So I won't delete it. Maybe it was there and the first DNFs couldn't find it, then it was found, and then later it went missing. More likely that the "found" log was bogus, but I can't prove that.

In my view a "bogus" log is one which either the cacher didn't find the cache at all, or didn't look for it. And I think they do some harm as they give false information to the owner.

A find where the cacher found the container but there was some reason they could not sign (no pen, container wouldn't open, log too wet, or they got chased by a bear) I don't consider bogus. But I would like the cacher to indicate if the reason for lack of signature was because of a cache issue I can deal with (e.g. wet log) so I can deal with it.

I've been making this argument for years. Bogus logs can waste the time and money of other geocachers and that isn't harmless fun.

December 4, 2013

So, I think my question is along these lines. I hid my second Cache recently which has received well remarks. It is a field puzzle with 1 lock and 1 cryptex. Clue gives the direction to both combinations for a quick/easy open. As I read through the logged finds, 2 cachers logged a find but wrote the following:

Cacher 1: Thank you from "Removed Name". I am traveling the USA in an RV on a fulltime basis and cache along the way. Could not open lock.

Cacher 2: Never opened and SL . Hate locks TFTC

The cache is placed in a very nice location and I custom built the containers and cryptext. Major part of the experience is opening the container and seeing the Cryptex I made. It took a lot of work and planning.

I usualy go by the saying, We all the the game differently. I am considering sending these 2 cachers a message saying they did not meet the requirements for a find, please post the "Found Log" onceyou have opened the container and signed the log. If you have a disability that prevents you from opening a combo lock, please let me know otherwise the found it logs will be deleted in 2 weeks.

Thoughts?

Edited December 4, 2013 by jakeyuma

3.7k · December 4, 2013

So, I think my question is along these lines. I hid my second Cache recently which has received well remarks. It is a field puzzle with 1 lock and 1 cryptex. Clue gives the direction to both combinations for a quick/easy open. As I read through the logged finds, 2 cachers logged a find but wrote the following:

Cacher 1: Thank you from "Removed Name". I am traveling the USA in an RV on a fulltime basis and cache along the way. Could not open lock.

Cacher 2: Never opened and SL . Hate locks TFTC

The cache is placed in a very nice location and I custom built the containers and cryptext. Major part of the experience is opening the container and seeing the Cryptex I made. It took a lot of work and planning.

I usualy go by the saying, We all the the game differently. I am considering sending these 2 cachers a message saying they did not meet the requirements for a find, please post the "Found Log" onceyou have opened the container and signed the log. If you have a disability that prevents you from opening a combo lock, please let me know otherwise the found it logs will be deleted in 2 weeks.

Thoughts?

I would have absolutely no problem just deleting it without the hassle of emailing and such. Funny thing, though. If they'd just left out the part about not signing the log or not opening the lock, I would have just left it...but them not actually solving the puzzle or accessing the log and writing about it means they are SOL.

9k · December 4, 2013

Clan, you're approaching this from the perspective that one can never know if a cache is there or not based on logs. It may be true, but you can't be against bogus logs and yet use that argument about determining if a cache is or isn't there, or claim that only fanatical 'numbers cachers' will care about bogus logs when they search. We're talking about the "bogus log" - that implies the situation necessarily means a cache is not there. So, let's work with that in mind.

First, this isn't only an issue for the religious "about the numbers" cachers

since it's equally true for every single cache on the planet [wrong premise, see above], this concern rates naught more than a "Meh". Any cache can disappear betwixt the last guy to find it and your find. I suppose, for those numbers oriented cachers, who don't feel as if they have succeeded at this hobby unless they walk away with a smilie [ooh, that's loaded], this might be a noteworthy concern. They might pop off with some silliness about how their 'time was wasted' [ah right, nice objective point]. Frankly, I don't see it. I enjoy the other details involved in this hobby, such as plotting a route to the best parking, getting to ground zero and conducting a hunt. These are fun, for me. So, if said hunt ends in a DNF, I won't be singing the blues [you should hunt for non-existent caches more often if it's of no concern to you].

Bogus logs can waste the time and money of other geocachers and that isn't harmless fun.

What briansnat said is very true. It can very well be harmful.

Very common and likely situation:

Cachers looking for a good, enjoyable cache to find on the weekend. The fun of the hunt. (not just the hike). That doesn't imply it's about the numbers - that implies they like to geocache; you know, to search for a cache. They find one and decide it's worth driving a significant distance for the cache because hey, it was found yesterday. It has a history of DNFs and finds, and the last few logs follow that pattern (couple DNFs over the last month followed by a find). But it was found, so they're willing to eat the expense of travel to locate it. High favorites, a challenge, lots of good word about it. And it was just found.

After an exhaustive search, alas, no they can't find it. Oh well, the hunt was fun, but they log the DNF and head home.

Sometime in the near future (perhaps after a couple of other DNFs) the CO checks on it and finds that it's missing. Out of curiosity the CO contacts the last finder to check on the state they left it. Based on their interaction, the CO becomes aware that it was not, in fact, a find. The CO deletes the find log, posts a maintenance and replaces the cache and log.

Previous DNFers see this update, and become angry because they expended gas to hunt for a cache they could not have found, based on the premise that the cache was there because it was just found, when it may not have been there even back to the previous find, posted prior to those previous DNFs. They can rightly say that their priorities would not have encouraged them to take that road trip to find the cache, and needlessly expend that money, to find a cache they didn't believe they had a good chance at finding. Perhaps they would have contacted the owner first if the last couple of logs were DNFs, letting them know they were going to take a road trip to find it, asking if they could verify it is there.

They realize that if the cache was in fact there, they may well have found it. So they contact the CO and ask, recounting their search, if they would have found it. The CO confirms they would have found it if it were there.

BOTH the CO and the DNFers were mislead because of that bogus find log.

Sure, the location was nice, the drive was nice, they had a good time in general.

But there's a difference between failing to find a cache that was there (taunting a return trip to try again), and being unable to find a cache they would have found had it actually been there (requiring another unnecessary trip to 'properly' sign the log).

If it was known the cache was missing, or they felt the cost of the trip was not worth it given the risk of a DNF knowing the last few logs were DNFs (no finds), they would not have gone that day. They would have waited until a Find log was posted. Or until the owner verified it.

Money was needlessly wasted for the trip - based on their own geocaching and financial priorities (which may not be yours, but it was theirs)

You said you agree with deleting bogus find logs. Great!

This is just an example to show that bogus find logs can be and are indeed a harm to the game, for both owners and finders. And that it's not a concern that is, inherently, "about the numbers"

9.3k · December 5, 2013

Bruce, I agree with much of what you wrote. However, there are some nits worth picking. To start, yes. The company line is that bogus logs should be deleted. I'll wave that particular flag, though, I must admit, I am not a strict adherent. So, no worries on that account. The area I take exception to is the theory that time, or money, spent, doing something I enjoy, can somehow be a waste, if it doesn't increase my find count. Sure, a cache hunt is (usually) better if it's successful. With my love of DNFs, I had to toss in a qualifier. :lol: But a hunt which is not successful, is not necessarily a waste of time and/or money, if you enjoyed yourself. If someone declares, as an absolute, that any time spent on a missing cache is a waste, I can't help but believe that person is only in it for the numbers.

3.3k · December 5, 2013

Bruce, I agree with much of what you wrote. However, there are some nits worth picking. To start, yes. The company line is that bogus logs should be deleted. I'll wave that particular flag, though, I must admit, I am not a strict adherent. So, no worries on that account. The area I take exception to is the theory that time, or money, spent, doing something I enjoy, can somehow be a waste, if it doesn't increase my find count. Sure, a cache hunt is (usually) better if it's successful. With my love of DNFs, I had to toss in a qualifier. But a hunt which is not successful, is not necessarily a waste of time and/or money, if you enjoyed yourself. If someone declares, as an absolute, that any time spent on a missing cache is a waste, I can't help but believe that person is only in it for the numbers.

I'll go along with the prior post, not the one right above. I cache occasionally and have 80-some finds after about 14 months. It's clearly not a numbers game for me. But finding out that a cache was missing would add negativity to the experience. Rational or not, that's how some of us feel.

I've tried for some FTF's, & can think of two with seriously bad coordinates. To seek and not find the FTF is on balance positive (nice trip, excitement of a race against other cachers, etc.). To find out later that the coords were way off is a bummer.

8k · December 5, 2013

We're talking about the "bogus log" - that implies the situation necessarily means a cache is not there. So, let's work with that in mind.

If we are talking about a bogus log that doesn't come right and say the the cache was not there but the seeker is logging as found anyway, then in my experience bogus logs of this sort are extremely rare. On top of that, it is impossible for the cache owner to know for sure that these are bogus logs. Let's just say the owner goes to check the cache after a suspicious log. Since there is no cache, there is no physical log for owner to check. Even if there were several DNFs prior to the alleged bogus log, the owner has no proof the cache was not actually found and that the cache went missing later.

There are times when some serial bogus logger logs a bunch of caches at once that are not likely to be found all in the same day and those owners who check their caches find those did not have the log signed. Certainly a caches owner who is that aware this took place can delete any log that appears to be bogus, as is specified in the guidelines.

What briansnat said is very true. It can very well be harmful.

Very common and likely situation:

Cachers looking for a good, enjoyable cache to find on the weekend. The fun of the hunt. (not just the hike). That doesn't imply it's about the numbers - that implies they like to geocache; you know, to search for a cache. They find one and decide it's worth driving a significant distance for the cache because hey, it was found yesterday. It has a history of DNFs and finds, and the last few logs follow that pattern (couple DNFs over the last month followed by a find). But it was found, so they're willing to eat the expense of travel to locate it. High favorites, a challenge, lots of good word about it. And it was just found.

After an exhaustive search, alas, no they can't find it. Oh well, the hunt was fun, but they log the DNF and head home.

I have little doubt that, all else being equal, most cachers prefer a hunt that ends in a find over a DNF. And I am aware that some cachers (and not just numbers cachers) will eliminated via a GSAK macro or other tool, caches that have not been found in a while or that have one or more DNFs with no subsequent finds. I'll accept that these cachers may end up searching for a cache they would not have otherwise because of a false found log.

However, in my experience, such logs are rare. I can't think of one in my over 8000 finds. I'll admit however, that the way I chose which caches to hunt may not be representative. I generally don't eliminate caches based on recent finds or DNFs, So if I can't find a cache, and see several DNF's followed by a find, I may just determine that the cache is difficult (despite the ratings) and I just didn't find it.

My practice is to add caches I DNF to a bookmark list so I get a notification when it is logged. Usually I'll see others find the cache, and will try again and most of the time successfully find the cache. Sometimes the cache ends up being archived after someone eventually post a NM or NA. Other times the owner goes out, can't find the cache and leave a replacement. I don't keep track of specific numbers, but I personally know of cases where a cache was archived or replaced, and later someone (myself on several occasions) finds the original container.

Sometime in the near future (perhaps after a couple of other DNFs) the CO checks on it and finds that it's missing. Out of curiosity the CO contacts the last finder to check on the state they left it. Based on their interaction, the CO becomes aware that it was not, in fact, a find. The CO deletes the find log, posts a maintenance and replaces the cache and log.

Previous DNFers see this update, and become angry because they expended gas to hunt for a cache they could not have found, based on the premise that the cache was there because it was just found, when it may not have been there even back to the previous find, posted prior to those previous DNFs. They can rightly say that their priorities would not have encouraged them to take that road trip to find the cache, and needlessly expend that money, to find a cache they didn't believe they had a good chance at finding. Perhaps they would have contacted the owner first if the last couple of logs were DNFs, letting them know they were going to take a road trip to find it, asking if they could verify it is there.

They realize that if the cache was in fact there, they may well have found it. So they contact the CO and ask, recounting their search, if they would have found it. The CO confirms they would have found it if it were there.

BOTH the CO and the DNFers were mislead because of that bogus find log.

Sure, the location was nice, the drive was nice, they had a good time in general.

Strangely, this argument always involves a hypothetical situation. briansnat used to claim he had friends who used a tank of gas to look for a cache like this. But unwilling to give any other details such a anecdote is no better than the hypothetical.

I believe that among the million of cache hunts it likely that something like the hypothetical has happened. But I believe it is very rare. Far more often the alleged bogus find encourages some to look for a cache that is really there, or the alleged bogus log is so suspicious that nobody plans an cache hunt based on it.

But there's a difference between failing to find a cache that was there (taunting a return trip to try again), and being unable to find a cache they would have found had it actually been there (requiring another unnecessary trip to 'properly' sign the log).

If it was known the cache was missing, or they felt the cost of the trip was not worth it given the risk of a DNF knowing the last few logs were DNFs (no finds), they would not have gone that day. They would have waited until a Find log was posted. Or until the owner verified it.

Money was needlessly wasted for the trip - based on their own geocaching and financial priorities (which may not be yours, but it was theirs)

Aside from the rarity of this happening on a particular cache, the idea that someone has wasted time and money looking for the cache seem bogus (hmm?). Most people don't make a long trip just to find one cache. Sure a particular cache on their watchlist may be the primary target for the day. And sure they may be disappointed not finding this one cache. But I'll wager they looked for other caches as well and probably had a good time. They certainly might feel "cheated" that there was bogus log on that targeted cache, but I doubt that they could often make a case that their caching day was a total waste. In addition, one can argue that they share part of the blame by trusting a single possibly bogus log.

2.6k · December 5, 2013

I have little doubt that, all else being equal, most cachers prefer a hunt that ends in a find over a DNF. And I am aware that some cachers (and not just numbers cachers) will eliminated via a GSAK macro or other tool, caches that have not been found in a while or that have one or more DNFs with no subsequent finds. I'll accept that these cachers may end up searching for a cache they would not have otherwise because of a false found log.

However, in my experience, such logs are rare.

I think this is a key point. I believe most of the time people log honestly. They might log in a way which others don't agree with (e.g. claim a find when they didn't have a pen to sign), but I believe cases where someone claims a find where they didn't find the cache at all are rare.

And since it is rare, it's not a big problem.

Let's define a bogus log as one where the person who logged "found it" didn't find it. Perhaps they didn't even look for it, but they logged a find.

There are 2 sub cases:

1. The cache is there

2. The cache is missing

If they log a find and the cache is there, it doesn't really do any harm; other than creating false statistics. And if the owner suspects it is bogus and checks the physical log they can delete the log.

As has been said, if the cache was missing, this does more harm as it misleads both the owner and potential finders about the likely status of the cache. But you can't be sure they didn't find it.

What is my point? It is that this... if bogus logs became common, it would be bad for the game. So in that way it is something to have some concern about.

Here is an example: I'm not saying there is a bogus log here (I can't tell):

http://coord.info/GC45QA3

Now it is perfectly possible the found it log on April 6 is valid. But what if the log on April 6th was "bogus" - the cache wasn't actually found. It would likely delay the cache owner taking action.

I am also one of those who watches all the caches I DNF. I like to see if others find it (and it was just me missing it as I often do), or if others also fail to find it. A bogus log gives out false information.

38.2k · December 5, 2013

I think this is a key point. I believe most of the time people log honestly. They might log in a way which others don't agree with (e.g. claim a find when they didn't have a pen to sign), but I believe cases where someone claims a find where they didn't find the cache at all are rare.

And since it is rare, it's not a big problem....

49 pages and growing. And I suspect that this is only the tip of the iceberg.

9k · December 5, 2013

Ok... another big-worded reply-rant

The area I take exception to is the theory that time, or money, spent, doing something I enjoy, can somehow be a waste, if it doesn't increase my find count. Sure, a cache hunt is (usually) better if it's successful. With my love of DNFs, I had to toss in a qualifier. But a hunt which is not successful, is not necessarily a waste of time and/or money, if you enjoyed yourself. If someone declares, as an absolute, that any time spent on a missing cache is a waste, I can't help but believe that person is only in it for the numbers.

You missed the point: I'm not saying a simple DNF hurts the game. I'm saying a DNF that needn't be a DNF, or a bogus log implying the cache was there when it wasn't and the DNF would have been a find if the cache were there, or a bogus log falsely assuages the concern that a cache may not be there letting the listing stand as findable when it's not - those can hurt the game.

If we are talking about a bogus log that doesn't come right and say the the cache was not there but the seeker is logging as found anyway, then in my experience bogus logs of this sort are extremely rare.

Agreed, that doesn't happen often, but it happens, and I've seen it happen.

On top of that, it is impossible for the cache owner to know for sure that these are bogus logs.

Disagree.

As I said, the owner can contact suspect loggers and have them describe the cache or their search - whether as a 'test' or to legitimately inquire about about the state of the cache as last found. I've done this on mine. There are two outcomes: The logger does not answer at all (why?) or they answer, either admitting to not finding it or not being able to describe it (I don't know anyone who would refuse to describe their legitimate find). In either case, if the description is not correct (or not provided) it's almost guaranteed to be a bogus log. Given that revelation, if a sibling DNFer describes their search and it's clear they would have found the cache, then yes it most definitely is possible to know for sure bogus logs, and even whether a cache is missing.

I know this first hand. Rare? Perhaps. But that's not the point.

Is it impossible to know? No. Is there a guaranteed way for the CO to know? No. However, it most definitely is possible for the cache owner to find out, and at the least gain some insight.

I can't think of one in my over 8000 finds.

Then you've been very fortunate

I'll admit however, that the way I chose which caches to hunt may not be representative. I generally don't eliminate caches based on recent finds or DNFs, So if I can't find a cache, and see several DNF's followed by a find, I may just determine that the cache is difficult (despite the ratings) and I just didn't find it.

Likewise. I may contact the owner if I have a suspicion it may be missing, and describe my search to find out if I would have found it.

And yes, if they confirm it's missing, and I expended a significant amount of time and/or money for the search based on the recent find log (even if I'd found other caches while on this trip) - I may be a little bothered; and moreso if the CO determines that the last find is bogus. If I really want to find that cache (which does not mean it's about the numbers), then I'll have to take another trip to find it once it's maintained. Still a choice, but clearly one can understand how someone can consider this a 'waste' or very frustrating.

It's happened to me. It happens to others. It happens.

But just a DNF? Of course that in and of itself is not 'hurtful'. That's part of the game. That only hurts if you are playing for the numbers. Because it's a 0, not a +1.

My practice is to add caches I DNF to a bookmark list so I get a notification when it is logged.

I used to do that, when DNFs were more significant to me. Now I just log it locally, and online (if I'm not in a group, or no one else in the group has, or I really want it recorded online). I only set up notifications/watches on caches I really really want (or are really interested in). I'll check back occasionally on a cache I DNFd to see if the next visitor found it or also DNF'd.

I'm not really bothered if my DNF was legitimate because a cache was missing - my log helped alert the CO that maintenance may be required. The context of the issue at hand here is searching for a cache under the false pretense that it's available, due to a bogus find log.

Strangely, this argument always involves a hypothetical situation. briansnat used to claim he had friends who used a tank of gas to look for a cache like this. But unwilling to give any other details such a anecdote is no better than the hypothetical.

That's the point of a hypothetical.

As long as it's feasible, it's a valid example; a demonstration of a possible situation.

Have I been the victim of a bogus find log causing a needless DNF? I think so, but not recently and if I did it wasn't significant enough (to me) to burn into my memory or prompt me to go searching. But that's just me. It's much easier to provide hypotheticals (that are feasible) composed of experiences and likely alternate outcomes.

Far more often the alleged bogus find encourages some to look for a cache that is really there, or the alleged bogus log is so suspicious that nobody plans an cache hunt based on it.

I agree, bogus find logs on a good cache are more common. And ultimately those don't 'hurt' players who are searching for said cache. In those cases I'm fully on board with whatever degree to which owners deal with the logs on caches that are known to be in good standing (ie, cache has been confirmed ok, and a find log is known to be invalid). But in the cases when the find log is determined to be invalid and the cache is determined to be missing, there's a much bigger problem - the CO won't necessarily know, and followup searchers may then be deceived.

In the former case, the CO has the ability to decide how to treat the logs, and to a finder they essentially become irrelevant.

In the latter case, they are inherently hurtful to the game. As a finder, they can be frustrating and lead to wastes of time and money.

What's the solution?

Practically, I dunno. The only proactive action that can be taken really is by the CO (choosing if to delete a log), and only in the case of a cache existing and the log being known as bogus. The reactive action that can be taken is only after the hurt has happened, when the needless search has occurred if the CO can verify the cache and authenticity of recent Find/DNF logs.

So, overall, just teach people not to post bogus logs

the idea that someone has wasted time and money looking for the cache seem bogus (hmm?). Most people don't make a long trip just to find one cache. Sure a particular cache on their watchlist may be the primary target for the day. And sure they may be disappointed not finding this one cache. But I'll wager they looked for other caches as well and probably had a good time. They certainly might feel "cheated" that there was bogus log on that targeted cache, but I doubt that they could often make a case that their caching day was a total waste. In addition, one can argue that they share part of the blame by trusting a single possibly bogus log.

The 'idea that someone has wasted time and money' is not bogus.

Here's a more tangible example, in 'what if' form.

Example 1

In my first year caching, I had a trip to San Diego. There's a 5/5 cache placed there called Tomb Raider. Not having a vehicle, and being a social trip, I gained the interest of a number of other locals who were in for the adventure of finding this special cache.

The posted coordinates are in San Diego. I solved the puzzle without problem. The final coordinates however are 80 miles east, out of the city in the desert.

BIG drive on a somewhat tight schedule for one day. Gas. Time. Physical risk - it's in a desert.

We found the cache, and got home in good standing.

The cache had been found 6 months prior, following a maintenance run another 2 months prior in response to a find, following a DNF 6 months prior, following a find another 4 months prior, and so on. Rarely found, let alone attempted.

It was a risky endeavour. We chose to take that risk.

We found a couple of other caches en route, yes, but our goal was that one, and we didn't have much time for anything else. The trip itself was awesome, sure. Definitely worth the experience.

But what if...

What if the last find was bogus and the cache was actually missing? What if we had to resort to (what would certainly have been) a painful DNF, only to find out that the previous find was fake? In this case I think we were lucky that there was a maintenance fix-up before that. But if there wasn't, and the earlier DNF had been true - that the cache had been missing - and subsequence find(s) were bogus, then the entire trip, and the cost and time would have been a significant waste. Glad for the experience? Sure, still. But the time could have been better spent elsewhere, especially being on vacation with friends. The risk of a DNF would have been greater, without the existence of a recent find, and we could used the time (and money) for something else.

I would rather have posted a DNF due to legitimately being unable to locate the cache, than have posted a DNF only to find that there was no way we would have found the cache, especially if we would have found the cache in our search if it were there.

Being angry over a bogus find log for a missing cache doesn't mean one feels the experience was a waste. It just means that other options would have been more feasible, acceptable, desirable, especially if financial priorities would have been vastly different and a large cost was eaten needlessly due to this problem.

Second example (not as long)

There's a 5/5 in Ontario called Bushwacker. Out in the wilderness. Full day hike in and out. Series of caches all along the way, paving the way to the big 'finale' cache. Takes time, money, effort to get to. Say previous hikers do the hike, but failed to find the final. Being the 'type' they are, they opt to log it found anyway (hey, no one would be able to confirm if it went missing after they 'found' it, right?). We head in. Boy what an awesome hike and adventure! Loads of caches (still not about the numbers), beautiful weather, feels great. Get to the final - where is it? It's not hard to find, according to past logs, but it was just logged as found. *Hmph*. I guess we'll have to log DNF and come back later (as much as it hurts to resign to that). At that point - yeah the DNF hurts; but if the CO is able to confirm that the previous finders did not find the cache (this can be done easily), and instead knew that it was missing but didn't tell the CO, hooo boy...!

Different finders have different 'ethics' for logging finds. The previous hikers were loose - they didn't care. Perhaps they thought the CO would let them log it anyway, so they just logged it found (I've seen it happen, and I know people who may do that). The CO might decide to delete their bogus find log; that's his choice. But if we're 'good' cachers, even if the CO does allow us to log it found because we should have found it, we may opt to take the high road and keep it a DNF.

We may have had a great day, a great hike, and enjoyable experience, but that bogus find log caused problems. If they'd logged a DNF instead, we'd have had the choice to wait until the CO confirmed it was there, instead of expending that time and money that date for the attempt. We'd have waited, and reduced the risk for requiring multiple trips to find the target cache.

So...

Point #1: The CO can verify bogus logs for missing caches - the recent 'finder(s)' can (attempt to) describe the hide, or how they searched.

Point #2: "Wasted time" doesn't necessarily mean "bad experience". Waste simply means needless expense of something. That can most definitely be hurtful. Bogus find logs, inherently, can hurt the game by allowing wastefulness, which depending on the cachers, can promote a 'bad experience'.

Point #3: Bogus logs on missing caches may be rare. But they may well be less rare than you think, based on your own personal experience. Everyone's experiences are different though, so arguing rarity from personal experience is pointless.

Point #4: Yes, examples are hypothetical, but they're not necessarily a stretch. I know people who do this (large trips for target caches), and I know people who would be upset by bogus finds for this very reason. The point is whether bogus logs can be a harm to the game, for the finder (not just 'numbers' cachers) and the CO. Most definitely they can.

TL;DR

Rules of thumb:

* As a CO, is it better to shrug off bogus logs if you know they're bogus? Of course not! (a little bit of effort can provide a quick indication of bogus logs)

* As a finder, do not post bogus logs! Simple. They're misleading, and if you didn't actually find it, you may very well be falsely leading subsequent finders into bad, wasteful, or angering situations.

* As a victim of a bogus find, yes you have the choice to be angered or not, but you don't have a choice not to be wasteful after the fact. Time and money can't be regained once used. You can have a great experience, and still have wasted time and money - whether that upsets you is, of course, up to you.

Keep the game's potential good for everyone; fight bogus logs.

Ok done. :cool:

9.3k · December 6, 2013

Ok... another big-worded reply-rant

Holy Mackerel! I don't think I can match that one, so I'll be brief.

I think we agree on far more than we disagree. The difference really is slight.

Here's a more tangible example, in 'what if' form.

Example 1

In my first year caching, I had a trip to San Diego. There's a 5/5 cache placed there called Tomb Raider. Not having a vehicle, and being a social trip, I gained the interest of a number of other locals who were in for the adventure of finding this special cache. The posted coordinates are in San Diego. I solved the puzzle without problem. The final coordinates however are 80 miles east, out of the city in the desert. BIG drive on a somewhat tight schedule for one day. Gas. Time. Physical risk - it's in a desert. We found the cache, and got home in good standing. The cache had been found 6 months prior, following a maintenance run another 2 months prior in response to a find, following a DNF 6 months prior, following a find another 4 months prior, and so on. Rarely found, let alone attempted. It was a risky endeavour. We chose to take that risk. We found a couple of other caches en route, yes, but our goal was that one, and we didn't have much time for anything else. The trip itself was awesome, sure. Definitely worth the experience.

But what if...

What if the last find was bogus and the cache was actually missing?

Dude. From here in the cheap seats, it sounds like you had an awesome adventure! Due to my quirky caching aesthetics, combined with certain physical disabilities, my caching pattern oft follows similar traits. Many days or even weeks spent deciding on a great cache to go hunt, then a buttload of effort expended to get there. Obviously, that's subjective. The amount of effort involved in hauling my crippled remains a few miles down a trail could easily be compared to Sisyphus and his rock. :lol:

Generally, by the time I stagger out of the woods I feel like a pack of Oreo cookies which have been sat on by Rosie O'Donnell, but I'm grinning from ear to ear, with memories which will last a lifetime. Granted, my day will be even better if there's a smilie at the end. But even those days which end in a frownie face are still pretty epic.

In summation:

Any day spent on an adventure is a good day.

But an adventure with a smilie is better.

Neither adventure is a waste.

Waste simply means needless expense of something.

That's a pretty good working definition. But I'll suggest why it might not fit. For me, these adventures are absolutely essential. My job is fairly stressful. This hobby is how I waft that stress away. So, for me to drive 2 hours, then paddle 6 hours, for one cache, (something I'm planning on doing this Sunday), is most definitely not a needless expense. I'll be engaged in something I love doing. Hopefully, I'll find the cache. If I don't, sure, there will be some disappointment. As I mentioned, a smilie is better than a frownie. But that adventure will not be a waste. As it stands, I'm pretty sure the cache is there. The owner has a good history of cache maintenance, fixing reported problems promptly. But it is a multi. You just never know. The last "Found It" could have been entirely bogus. An utter fabrication. Personally, I'll still have a good time trying.

3.7k · December 6, 2013

Generally, by the time I stagger out of the woods I feel like a pack of Oreo cookies which have been sat on by Rosie O'Donnell...

I'm beginning to think you have an unhealthy obsession with Rosie O'Donnell. :anibad:

9k · December 6, 2013

Dude. From here in the cheap seats, it sounds like you had an awesome adventure!

No cache has topped that one, in 4 years of caching (and that was within the first 3 months)

Any day spent on an adventure is a good day.

But an adventure with a smilie is better.

Neither adventure is a waste.

IMO, if you can call it an adventure, then the adventure was not a waste.

Not arguing that point.

But there are people whose experiences will be soured by needlessly wasted time and money.

Waste simply means needless expense of something.

That's a pretty good working definition. But I'll suggest why it might not fit. For me, ... My job ... This hobby is how I ... for me to drive 2 hours, then paddle 6 hours, for one cache, (something I'm planning on doing this Sunday), is most definitely not a needless expense. I'll be engaged in something I love doing. Hopefully, I'll find the cache. If I don't, sure, there will be some disappointment. As I mentioned, a smilie is better than a frownie. But that adventure will not be a waste. As it stands, I'm pretty sure the cache is there. The owner has a good history of cache maintenance, fixing reported problems promptly. But it is a multi. You just never know. The last "Found It" could have been entirely bogus. An utter fabrication. Personally, I'll still have a good time trying.

It's great that you're able to do that - it really is. But other people's priorities may be different, and 'waste' comes into play when other more desirable or optimal options would have presented themselves had the parameters been different.

It's great that you wouldn't be bothered by finding out the trip you took which ended in a DNF was thanks to a bogus find log. For some though, the reason for the trip isn't just "the adventure", but also the joy of making an attempt to find a geocache (otherwise they'd just go on adventures, right?), even if realizing the search may end in a DNF - the expectation is you could find the cache; and if they find out it never would have been found anyway, then even though a memorable adventure was had, other options - which may have still provided that adventure - would have been more appropriate, and this trip would not have, effectively, wasted resources.

Not sure how many other ways I can explain that

Finally, I recommend Tomb Raider. Very much.

I did it with an iPhone 3GS. No one else had a GPS, it really was in the desert, and me friends weren't geocachers. (one of my best examples in debates against "smartphone" haters nyuk)

2.6k · December 6, 2013

The only 'Found It " log I recall deleting was after I got an Email ( forgot from who )a few years ago that someone was logging thousands of caches all over the world and I should delete his logs to my cache.....I checked and it was indeed happening and I deleted the log.

Regarding other bogus logs I've deleted approx 6 DNF, 10 NA, 10 NM.

9.3k · December 6, 2013

But other people's priorities may be different, and 'waste' comes into play when other more desirable or optimal options would have presented themselves had the parameters been different.

My thoughts are that, with any cache, (LPCs possibly excepted ), the parameters are identical, from the seekers perspective. You have a cache listing, which represents a future potential smilie. You have certain data on the cache page which can help you determine if you want to attempt to acquire that smilie, such as size, D/T rating, the map, the description, etc. As players, once we decide we want to try for that particular smilie, the adventure begins. How will we get to the general area? Drive? Bike? From there, how do we get to the cache? Hike? Paddle? Bike? Bushwhack? A combination? What gear will we need? Pokey stick? Kayak? Headlamp? Once the gear is gathered, we set out, hopefully conquering any obstacles along the way. Then we get to ground zero. Where's the cache? In that stump? Up that tree? Stuffed in the shrubbery? We're having fun so far. Our stress level has dropped to zero. The time, effort and money expended up to that point is certainly not wasted, regardless of the outcome. It was fun! Fun is never wasteful.

But assume that, in this case, the cache is missing. Typically, as cachers, we'll hunt until it is no longer fun. For some folks though, they'll keep searching long after the fun has ended, which can lead to frustration. Time spent engaging in a frustrating activity, with no positive reward at the end, could easily be seen as time wasted. But the wasted time doesn't begin until the frustration starts. Right up till that point, we're having a blast. Granted, there are folks who are a bit obsessed with numbers. These folks honestly believe that any time spent playing this game, which does not result in a smilie, is time wasted, no matter how much fun they had getting there. Those are the numbers oriented cachers I referred to earlier.

For some though, the reason for the trip isn't just "the adventure", but also the joy of making an attempt to find a geocache, even if realizing the search may end in a DNF - the expectation is you could find the cache; and if they find out it never would have been found anyway, then even though a memorable adventure was had, other options - which may have still provided that adventure - would have been more appropriate, and this trip would not have, effectively, wasted resources.

Maybe this is a debate over semantics? I think you are correct in your assumption that most folks would experience a bit of angst if they chose a cache to hunt based on a reasonable belief that it could be there, and that deliberately bogus, misleading logs can create false expectations, which would be dashed once the truth was known. Would this angst have a negative impact on the amount of fun they had prior to discovering that there was no hope in obtaining a smilie? I suppose, for some, it might. I guess it depends on how much importance they place on said smilie? Even I, as tolerant as I am toward DNFs, would be a bit grumpy at whoever had posted the bogus log. But, for me, this grumpiness would not delete whatever pleasure I experienced prior to becoming grumpy.

As such, the term "Waste", really doesn't work.

Stoopid semantics... :lol:

8k · December 6, 2013

But there are people whose experiences will be soured by needlessly wasted time and money.

This is the problem with hypotheticals. You can ascribe any reaction you like to the hypothetical cacher in the hypothetical situation.

While is true that most geocachers expect the information left in the online log to be truthful and may rely on this make decisions, there is a basic understanding that you can't believe everything you read on the internet. Most people understand that there are cases of obnoxious pimply faced teenagers sitting at home writing log bots to log bogus finds on thousands of caches. And that on rare occsions you might come across such a log while searching for a cache that isn't there. Almost certainly you will come away with the impression that tht logger is a jerk. You might also want to blame the cache owner for not questioning every find and trying to confirm it by emailling the logger for confirmation. But, at least for my hypothetical geocacher, you can decide that while most online logs are true, you simply had a unlucky break of seeing a bogus log that hadn't been deleted. In fact, my hypothetical geocacher logs a DNF and may even contxct the cache owner asking them to check on the cache, or at least disable it until they can check, to try to undo any misconceptions caused by the previous found log. It's convenient to lay blame for your disappointment on someone else. But you also have the option of accepting there are risks in relying a a single log to decide if this is a cache you are likely to find.

9k · December 6, 2013

My thoughts are that, with any cache, (LPCs possibly excepted ), the parameters are identical, from the seekers perspective.

I've covered that. Yes, while finding, you have no way of knowing. But after the fact, if the cache was never there in the first place, the time and/or money spent can definitely be considered by some a waste, even if they 'had a good time' at the time.

Then we get to ground zero. Where's the cache?

Then you find out there was no cache - the search was pointless.

It was fun! Fun is never wasteful.

You're completely missing the point I'm making.

Time spent engaging in a frustrating activity, with no positive reward at the end, could easily be seen as time wasted. But the wasted time doesn't begin until the frustration starts.

Nope. It can be retroactive. I might have fun while searching, and even be willing to log a DNF without issue. If I find out I needn't have even had to search, or could have waited a week and searched, then that time and money could retroactively be considered a waste!

"Man, instead of searching for nothing, I could have saved that money and gone this week instead, and maybe actually have found the cache! It was fun, but what a waste of a trip!"

Granted, there are folks who are a bit obsessed with numbers.

Stop saying that. There are those people, but that's irrelevant to my point.

Maybe this is a debate over semantics? I think you are correct in your assumption that most folks would experience a bit of angst if they chose a cache to hunt based on a reasonable belief that it could be there, and that deliberately bogus, misleading logs can create false expectations, which would be dashed once the truth was known. Would this angst have a negative impact on the amount of fun they had prior to discovering that there was no hope in obtaining a smilie?

Had fun prior to discovering it wasn't there? No - if they had fun, they had fun. If they didn't, they didn't.

I suppose, for some, it might. I guess it depends on how much importance they place on said smilie?

How about rephrasing it to "how much importance they place on being able to find the cache they're looking for" -- instead of constantly reducing the "fun of geocaching" to a "smiley". Is your goal to search for a cache (geocaching)? Or is your goal to go on an adventure (go outdoors)? OR is your goal to boost your find count (about the numbers)?

Even I, as tolerant as I am toward DNFs, would be a bit grumpy at whoever had posted the bogus log. But, for me, this grumpiness would not delete whatever pleasure I experienced prior to becoming grumpy.

Nor did I say they were inextricably linked.

As such, the term "Waste", really doesn't work.

For you.

Edited December 6, 2013 by thebruce0

9k · December 6, 2013

* But there are people whose experiences will be soured by needlessly wasted time and money.

This is the problem with hypotheticals. You can ascribe any reaction you like to the hypothetical cacher in the hypothetical situation.

Hyotheticals are not a Bad Thing. Their feasibility is the question - and I'm providing examples I know can and do happen even though I can't (recall and) say "I have experienced this myself first hand". My two examples are as close to first hand as I can possibly imagine - and they are simply demonstrating legitimate possible reasons as to why a cacher may consider a bogus find log on a non-existent cache a BAD THING. *sigh*

While is true that most geocachers expect the information left in the online log to be truthful and may rely on this make decisions, there is a basic understanding that you can't believe everything you read on the internet.

Ah, hyperbole. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. We're talking about the effect of bogus find logs on the hobby of geocaching, not gullibility of accepting internet truths.

You might also want to blame the cache owner for not questioning every find and trying to confirm it by emailling the logger for confirmation.

Some might. My very feasible two examples did not resort to blaming the CO in any way.

But, at least for my hypothetical geocacher, you can decide that while most online logs are true, you simply had a unlucky break of seeing a bogus log that hadn't been deleted.

For simple caches, sure that would be negligable. In the context of what a cacher might consider a 'waste' - who is anyone to make that call but the cacher themselves? My examples were, from my experience, what I would consider a 'waste' were the recent find logs bogus and the cache was not there. I wouldn't care as a finder about a bogus find on an LPC around the corner. But I would on a day long generally extreme cache trip with costs involved. I would expect the cache to actually be there, even if I had to resort to a DNF. If it weren't, I wouldn't blame the CO if it were due to a bogus find log. I wouldn't necessarily take on those expenses if I didn't think I had a decent chance at finding the cache. My evaluation of that chance depends on the cache and recent logs. Bunch of DNFs? Unlikely to take the risk - might contact the CO if they can check on it. Just found? Much more likely I'll go for it. If I find out later the find was false, better believe I'd be angry at the bogus logger. My decisions would have been different without the bogus log.

I know plenty of people in my region who would feel the same way.

Are you two trying to argue that if anyone is upset because of a bogus find log, causing them to feel a trip was a waste - even if they had fun - then they are "numbers cachers" only in it "for the smiley" and their concern is really their problem... because it wouldn't bother you?

I hope not.

Bogus logs are hurtful to the game.

I'll reiterate - Rules of thumb regarding the OP:

* As a finder, don't post bogus logs.

* As a CO, if a log is known to be bogus, deal with it. You don't know who it might 'hurt', whatever their decisions, caching habits, preferences, goals, or search parameters are.

Heck, even an LPC might be super important to a cacher who's completing a challenge, and has to travel a long distance for it. A DNF on that important LPC for them could be hard to take; but a DNF on the LPC after finding out it wasn't findable contrary to a bogus find log? Yes, even if you consider challenge caching "for the numbers", that doesn't change the fact that the bogus find log can cause that trip to be considered a waste.

Edited December 6, 2013 by thebruce0

7.5k · December 6, 2013

But assume that, in this case, the cache is missing. Typically, as cachers, we'll hunt until it is no longer fun. For some folks though, they'll keep searching long after the fun has ended, which can lead to frustration.

Almost there, so let me connect the dots for you. I go on a search. I can't find it even though I "know" it was just found last week. The last found log makes it sound easy. What am I missing? I keep searching, yes, to the point of getting frustrated. That's the main thing I remember about the whole trip. Sorry, I'm only human. Finally I give up. When I get home, I look over the logs and finally work out what would have been obvious to the CO: the log that spurred me on was bogus. The CO has failed me. My feelings about it have nothing whatsoever to do with me caring one iota about adding one more find to my statistics.

8k · December 6, 2013

While is true that most geocachers expect the information left in the online log to be truthful and may rely on this make decisions, there is a basic understanding that you can't believe everything you read on the internet.

Ah, hyperbole. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. We're talking about the effect of bogus find logs on the hobby of geocaching, not gullibility of accepting internet truths.

Isn't it the same? We play an internet game that is based on trust. Trust that hiders actually hid the cache and provides correct coordinates, trust that caches seeker are honest is reporting their experiences, trust that they replace the cache as found, trust that when they trade they leave something of equal value. I agree that if bogus logs ever became commen, it would harm geocaching. But so long as they are rare, I contend that they don't have the effects that are claimed. If cache seekers understand that there is some small risk someone has "violated" the trust, then the disappointment is limited our usual disapppointment that humans are imperfect and not everyone is a saint. Instead of feelling you wasted your time you migth feel embarassment that you were fooled by a suspicious log.

I don't deny that fraud is a crime. But the legal definition is deception with intent to gain some advantage. Certainly some believe that bogus logs are done because someone perceives gaining an advantage in having a smiley they would not otherwise have gotten. But this is hard to prove. Even harder to prove would be the intent cause a loss to other seekers of the cache.

You might also want to blame the cache owner for not questioning every find and trying to confirm it by emailling the logger for confirmation.

Some might. My very feasible two examples did not resort to blaming the CO in any way.

But aren't you arguing that cache owners should be deleting the bogus logs? Sure the examples are meant to show that subsequent finders suffer a loss in searching for a cache that might not be there. I understoo this to be teh reason you believe that cache owners must delete bogus log. When I argued that the cache owner usually cannot tell whether these logs are bogus, you responded that the owner could challenge the logs and ask the finder to provide some evidence they did find the cache. I don't disagree that a cache owner can do this, but how many owner will want to challenge every find on a cache. It seems this will only happen in case where the log appears suspicious to begin with. If the log is suspicious to the owner, it should be suspicious to anyone considering searching for the cache based on the log.

In the context of what a cacher might consider a 'waste' - who is anyone to make that call but the cacher themselves?

I agree that any can choose to feel that they wasted their time. (I know I often feel this way after posting in the forums ). The argument I am making is that 1) I'm not so sure that the feeling is universal among those who may have been the rare case of searching for a cache based on a bogus log, and 2) that having this kind of attitude may make it hard to keep enjoying this internet base game where there is always a possibility that someone is not being entirely truthful.

9.3k · December 6, 2013

Then you find out there was no cache - the search was pointless.

Unless you enjoyed yourself whilst conducting your search. Then, it would not be pointless.

Nope. It can be retroactive. I might have fun while searching, and...

There really isn't any reason to expound upon the second sentence. Assume, for argument's sake that you had a pleasant drive to the parking area, schmoozing with your friends. Let's say this road trip lasted 1 hour, and cost you $20 in gas. Then assume you had a pleasant time hiking/biking/kayaking/etc to ground zero, sucking up what Momma Nature has to offer. Let's say this voyage from the parking area to ground zero took two hours, and cost you $5 in granola bars and bottled water. Then assume you spent 15 minutes with your friends, searching for the cache. You reach a point where you collectively decide the cache is not there, and that further searching would be pointless.

Up to that point, you've spent three hours enjoying yourself, at a cost of $25.

When you get home and do a detailed review of past logs, determining that the cache was actually missing, and that no amount of effort would have achieved the smilie you set out to acquire, do you step through a hole in the space/time continuum? I'm unclear on how you take those three hours, which were enjoyable, and suddenly make them not enjoyable. You had fun. If the disappointment were retroactive, as you suggest, then all that fun that you had would have to somehow change, so that it was not fun. Without a time machine, I'm not sure this is plausible.

No one is denying that you could have spent that same three hours and $25 doing something else. Perhaps a different cache which is there? Perhaps some other activity which would have a positive outcome? But the whole 'coulda/shoulda/woulda' thing does not make those three hours, which were fun, somehow not fun.

Had fun prior to discovering it wasn't there?

No - if they had fun, they had fun. If they didn't, they didn't.

Wait... What? This would seem to contradict your earlier claim that angst can be retroactive.

instead of constantly reducing the "fun of geocaching" to a "smiley". Is your goal to search for a cache (geocaching)? Or is your goal to go on an adventure (go outdoors)? OR is your goal to boost your find count (about the numbers)?

Since this is a conversation about geocaching, let's keep the focus on this particular hobby. We can take debates about hiking and/or kayaking to other forums. With the focus returned, I'll address your concern. I think you are right to draw a line betwixt those whose goals are to geocache, (the act of getting to a cache and hunting for it), and those whose goals are only to increase their find count. In my opinion, those in the latter group are too obsessed with numbers, though, I don't doubt that those folks in that group would disagree. :lol: Is there a way for outsiders to determine if a particular cacher belongs in the latter group? Perhaps. If someone is focused on increasing their find count to the extent that they are willing to travel backward through time, just to ensure that three hours, which were enjoyable, suddenly become not enjoyable, just because there is no smilie, that person may be a numbers oriented cacher. :unsure: If a cacher does not try to alter the past based on the acquisition of a smilie, then that person might not be a numbers oriented cacher.

9k · December 6, 2013

Trust that hiders actually hid the cache and provides correct coordinates, trust that caches seeker are honest is reporting their experiences, trust that they replace the cache as found, trust that when they trade they leave something of equal value. I agree that if bogus logs ever became commen, it would harm geocaching. But so long as they are rare, I contend that they don't have the effects that are claimed.

Do bogus logs hurt "the game" universally? Of course not. The rarity of them shows this, and my scenarios are purely related to the experience of the finders themselves.

If the question is whether "geocaching" is hurt by bogus logs, then I would say no, or at least negligibly.

If the question is whether individuals' geocaching experiences can be hurt by bogus logs? Yes!

But if the question is whether "geocaching" as a hobby suffers a loss when its players in general have increased potential for bad experiences? Then I would say yes, and more than negligibly. (the same debate can rage on for the issue of buried caches, as elsewhere in this forum)

If cache seekers understand that there is some small risk someone has "violated" the trust, then the disappointment is limited our usual disapppointment that humans are imperfect and not everyone is a saint. Instead of feelling you wasted your time you migth feel embarassment that you were fooled by a suspicious log.

And my scenarios all presumed trust in past logs. The solution of course isn't to doubt every single log. The solution is to promote not posting bogus logs, as well maintaining the integrity of your geocache listing =P

* My very feasible two examples did not resort to blaming the CO in any way.
But aren't you arguing that cache owners should be deleting the bogus logs?

Deleting known bogus logs, as an answer to the OP, yes I believe it's a responsibility as a cache owner to maintain the integrity of the online history of your cache listing, as many cachers use that to make decisions about their actions.

Proactively assessing each and every log for validity? Only if you want to be OCD about it.

Paying attention to logs? Yes. Following up on instinct or suspicions about log validity? I would say yes, as a responsibility of being a CO - for the sake of subsequent people who may want to find your cache.

I understoo this to be teh reason you believe that cache owners must delete bogus log.

But until someone knows it's bogus, no one is to blame for its existent except the person who posted it. I can't blame the CO for not deleting a bogus log before they even know it's bogus, or even for not being suspicious about it, especially if the find log appears perfectly legitimate. If I have my own suspicions about a log's legitimacy, I might contact the CO to find out about it first, or even contact that logger.

The call for COs to delete known bogus logs takes effects after they know it's bogus. Until then, the fault is entirely on the fake logger. Until then, one can only rely on suspicion - either in deciding whether to go find it, or deciding whether to check a log's validity.

When I argued that the cache owner usually cannot tell whether these logs are bogus, you responded that the owner could challenge the logs and ask the finder to provide some evidence they did find the cache. I don't disagree that a cache owner can do this, but how many owner will want to challenge every find on a cache.

See above. Not every find on a cache.

It seems this will only happen in case where the log appears suspicious to begin with. If the log is suspicious to the owner, it should be suspicious to anyone considering searching for the cache based on the log.

Yep. But not necessarily. The difference is the CO knows their own cache - other cachers don't. In general, the CO would have a clearer instinct if a log is potentially falisified. Nonetheless, that's not on the issue of fault, that's just about who would be first to act on a suspicion - most likely the CO.

I agree that any can choose to feel that they wasted their time. (I know I often feel this way after posting in the forums . The argument I am making is that 1) I'm not so sure that the feeling is universal among those who may have been the rare case of searching for a cache based on a bogus log, and 2) that having this kind of attitude may make it hard to keep enjoying this internet base game where there is always a possibility that someone is not being entirely truthful.

1) Universal? Obviously not (Clan as case in point). But I'm not saying it's universal, and I never did. Universality is irrelevant. The question is - do bogus logs hurt the game? On an infrequent individual level - they can. If you feel any factor's negative impact on community hurts the game in general, then yes, bogus logs hurt the geocaching hobby to some degree.

2) You don't have to let other people's frustrations ruin your enjoyment of the game. Better you don't. I wouldn't want to either. But this thread just raised the question of whether a problem is or can be hurtful to the game. And yep, it can be.

So, CO's are better to be proactive with their caches (as a standard part of the added responsibility of owning a geocache for other people to find) - follow up on suspicious logs, and delete bogus logs.That's all I'm saying (while apparently needing many examples and many words to support that position )

At least we agree - sometimes these forums can feel like a waste of time ;P

9k · December 6, 2013

* Then you find out there was no cache - the search was pointless.

Unless you enjoyed yourself whilst conducting your search. Then, it would not be pointless.

Oh Clan, you really are missing what I'm saying.

* Nope. It can be retroactive. I might have fun while searching, and...

There really isn't any reason to expound upon the second sentence. Assume, for argument's sake that you had a pleasant drive to the parking area, schmoozing with your friends. Let's say this road trip lasted 1 hour, and cost you $20 in gas. Then assume you had a pleasant time hiking/biking/kayaking/etc to ground zero, sucking up what Momma Nature has to offer. Let's say this voyage from the parking area to ground zero took two hours, and cost you $5 in granola bars and bottled water. Then assume you spent 15 minutes with your friends, searching for the cache. You reach a point where you collectively decide the cache is not there, and that further searching would be pointless.

Up to that point, you've spent three hours enjoying yourself, at a cost of $25.

First, let me stop you there.

Your example is much tamer (subjectively speaking) compared to mine. Of course most people wouldn't be that upset about $25 and 3 hours - but neither you nor I can make that judgement call, because we don't know the context of why they decided to go for that cache.

Second, you can't "decide the cache is not there". You can theorize, you can assume, you can make an educated guess, but in general you cannot know for sure while you're there. There are two outcomes at that point: A find or a DNF - both, possible results you were, hopefully, willing to accept when you decided to set out to attempt to find the cache.

When you get home and do a detailed review of past logs, determining that the cache was actually missing

Until the CO confirms it's not there, how would you know? But let's assume you got to that point at least, for certain knowledge...

and that no amount of effort would have achieved the smilie you set out to acquire, do you step through a hole in the space/time continuum? I'm unclear on how you take those three hours, which were enjoyable, and suddenly make them not enjoyable. You had fun. If the disappointment were retroactive, as you suggest, then all that fun that you had would have to somehow change, so that it was not fun. Without a time machine, I'm not sure this is plausible. No one is denying that you could have spent that same three hours and $25 doing something else. Perhaps a different cache which is there? Perhaps some other activity which would have a positive outcome? But the whole 'coulda/shoulda/woulda' thing does not make those three hours, which were fun, somehow not fun.

Yup, not getting it.

Do I need to reiterate my responses to each of your points? Because I already addressed them.

* Had fun prior to discovering it wasn't there?

* No - if they had fun, they had fun. If they didn't, they didn't.

Wait... What? This would seem to contradict your earlier claim that angst can be retroactive.

No it doesn't. And I really don't want to repeat everything about why again.

instead of constantly reducing the "fun of geocaching" to a "smiley". Is your goal to search for a cache (geocaching)? Or is your goal to go on an adventure (go outdoors)? OR is your goal to boost your find count (about the numbers)?

I think you are right to draw a line betwixt those whose goals are to geocache, (the act of getting to a cache and hunting for it), and those whose goals are only to increase their find count. In my opinion, those in the latter group are too obsessed with numbers, though, I don't doubt that those folks in that group would disagree. Is there a way for outsiders to determine if a particular cacher belongs in the latter group? Perhaps. If someone is focused on increasing their find count to the extent that they are willing to travel backward through time, just to ensure that three hours, which were enjoyable, suddenly become not enjoyable, just because there is no smilie, that person may be a numbers oriented cacher. If a cacher does not try to alter the past based on the acquisition of a smilie, then that person might not be a numbers oriented cacher.

Dude.

Again.

It is not about the "acquisition of a smiley".

It's about whether you were actually attempting to find a geocache, or whether you were just ruffling around needlessly through the wood.

You know what, let's try to reduce this debate (or figure out what exactly is being debated), instead of arguing opinions.

Let's just answer the OP:

* Should a CO delete false find logs?

My answer: Yes.

* By extension, is it the CO's responsibility to determine whether every log on their cache is valid?

My answer: No.

You?

8k · December 6, 2013

Until the CO confirms it's not there, how would you know? But let's assume you got to that point at least, for certain knowledge...

Your hypotheticals become more and more far fetched.

Now we have a log that appears legit. Neither you nor the cache owner has any reason to suspect it other then there were some DNFs prior to the find. You look for the cache unsuccessfully. You are disappointed you didn't find the cache but presumably you didn't waste time or money because the cache might be there.

After your DNF, the cache owner checks on the cache, and doesn't find it. So he emails the last finder to ask where they found the cache. The last finder gets a pang of conscience and admits they never found the cache.

Boom. Entitlemenet kicks in. You have been cheated by the bogus logger. All of sudden you realised you spent your time on a wild goose chase and you need someone to blame.

Of course you still don't know for sure that the cache was missing when it was bogusly logged. In fact it might even still be there after the cache owner couldn't find it. But your caching intuition tells you though that the prior DNFs were a good indication the cache was already missing when the bogus logger struck. Hey that's enough of a reason to be bitter.

Now if we can only get all the bouus loggers (there must be hundreds of them) to read the forums so they can see the horrible damage they inflict on other cachers, then perhaps they will stop :unsure:

7.5k · December 6, 2013

* Should a CO delete false find logs?

My answer: Yes.

* By extension, is it the CO's responsibility to determine whether every log on their cache is valid?

My answer: No.

With all the angst here, I suspect we'll all agree on these as stated. I do, anyway. Unfortunately that leaves me facing squarely that I have no idea why we're arguing.

3.3k · December 7, 2013

^^^ (post 96) True, it's not the end of the world if the cache is lost, but you searched because you were reassured by a bogus log. Many would feel a bit disappointed, though, in being duped. And if it starts happening often, trust & confidence begin to break down, which could seriously harm the game.

Edited December 7, 2013 by wmpastor

9k · December 7, 2013

Your hypotheticals become more and more far fetched.

Nope, they were always based on the same premise.

Now we have a log that appears legit. Neither you nor the cache owner has any reason to suspect it other then there were some DNFs prior to the find. You look for the cache unsuccessfully. You are disappointed you didn't find the cache but presumably you didn't waste time or money because the cache might be there.

After your DNF, the cache owner checks on the cache, and doesn't find it. So he emails the last finder to ask where they found the cache. The last finder gets a pang of conscience and admits they never found the cache.

Good so far. I shall add the previous point made: the owner knows the cache is missing because the cacher's description of their search reveals they WOULD HAVE found it if it were there. Therefore the CO knows the find is bogus - not just because it was admitted as such, but because the CO knows the cache is missing or not placed as it should be.

Boom. Entitlemenet kicks in. You have been cheated by the bogus logger. All of sudden you realised you spent your time on a wild goose chase and you need someone to blame.

Entitlement? I'm being objective, you're not. "Needed someone to blame" - wrong again. There was a clear wrong that happened. The default position is that find logs are legitimate. A bogus logger has very much caused legitimate waste for this cacher. It's not entitlement. It's a waste in this person's case, that would not have happened otherwise, if a) the bogus find had not been logged or the bogus find was rather logged as a dnf or even c) the cacher had posted a NM because they didn't actually find the cache and may have felt it wasn't there. Some people do that.

Of course you still don't know for sure that the cache was missing when it was bogusly logged. In fact it might even still be there after the cache owner couldn't find it.

If the cache owner can't find it where it's supposed to be, there is every reason to believe that it is not there. If another cacher mis-placed it so the owner can't find it, it's effectively gone, because the owner will likely replace a new one. There's no effective difference.

But your caching intuition tells you though that the prior DNFs were a good indication the cache was already missing when the bogus logger struck. Hey that's enough of a reason to be bitter.

Nope, prior DNFs only imply, presuming of course legitimate logs, that the cachers couldn't find it - not that it's not there. A bogus find log, again presuming legitimate logs, implies the cache is indeed there. No indication it's not there. Even so, most cachers evaluate past logs and decide if it's "worth" the effort to locate the cache. And there's the rub.

*sigh* once again I'm just repeating everything already stated.

Now if we can only get all the bouus loggers (there must be hundreds of them) to read the forums so they can see the horrible damage they inflict on other cachers, then perhaps they will stop

Sarcasm does not help your position. I still don't even know what it is. Did you answer those two basic questions?

With all the angst here, I suspect we'll all agree on these as stated. I do, anyway. Unfortunately that leaves me facing squarely that I have no idea why we're arguing.

Nor I. Well, other than the fact that some people think no one has any need to feel "duped" by bogus find logs if they feel a trip was in any way at all wasteful.

True, it's not the end of the world if the cache is lost, but you searched because you were reassured by a bogus log. Many would feel a bit disappointed, though, in being duped. And if it starts happening often, trust & confidence begin to break down, which could seriously harm the game.

This.

Edited December 7, 2013 by thebruce0

13.7k · December 7, 2013

^^^ (post 96) True, it's not the end of the world if the cache is lost, but you searched because you were reassured by a bogus log. Many would feel a bit disappointed, though, in being duped. And if it starts happening often, trust & confidence begin to break down, which could seriously harm the game.

This is pretty-much my feelings on the subject.

I hiked long before there was caching, so a decent hike would still be a good thing.

- But back to the car, I'd be thinking about putting a flamin' bag 'o poo at the fake logger's door.

Enough fake logs and caching would just be removed from the day's hiking plan.

- Along with my PM money.

I just have one question...

Who are you and what did you do with wmpastor ? :lol:

Should CO's Delete False Find Logs?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment