Jump to content

Should CO's Delete False Find Logs?


CrazySanMan

Recommended Posts

Intermission. More popcorn. Nah. I think I'll go caching and look for something that may or may not be there. Must be better than this

 

Sounds like Schrödinger's cache

 

Meanwhile, I'd have no problem DNFing a cache that had a false find on it -- I would feel like I was helping out the next cacher who is deciding whether or not to go for it.

Link to comment
Sounds like Schrödinger's cache

Every cache is Schrödinger's cache :P

 

Meanwhile, I'd have no problem DNFing a cache that had a false find on it -- I would feel like I was helping out the next cacher who is deciding whether or not to go for it.

Depending on circumstances (per past examples), for the most part I'd feel the same. Better to help others make more informed decisions who may not be as 'forgiving', as it were =P

Link to comment
"That singular moment, that small span of time where my entire focus is on the search for the container...THAT is the only part I am talking about in this thread."

Personally, I don't consider only what happens at ground zero when evaluating my geocaching experience. If you do, that's fine. I have no problem with that. Just don't expect the rest of the world to follow. If what happened at GZ were all that geocaching was about, we might as well turn this hobby into nothing but P&Gs. Sure, the numbers oriented cachers would delight at such a change, but I would be looking for a new hobby.

 

Geocaching is not the same as hiking/driving/skydiving. Geocaching is the search for the cache. The rest is the journey that results in geocaching. Seriously...you don't understand that? It's quite elementary and I'm disappointed that someone as intelligent and prolix as you doesn't seem to understand the distinction.

Link to comment

..snip..

CanadianRockies has summed up things pretty well. I mostly have no issue with it except for a couple of points.

 

I want to point out that cachers don't know the odds of finding a cache; they can only estimate the odds. I'll accept the numbers as one cacher's estimates. Clearly people can use their estimates - along with other data - to choose what to hunt. And in as much as a bogus logs effects their estimate, bogus may result in them searching for a cache the would otherwise have avoided.

 

For many geocachers, it isn't about maximizing the odds that the hunt is successful. Instead, it's about maximizing their enjoyment while out geocaching.
Then why give all that grief to CR. He has explained why, for him, finding the cache is not that important of a factor in maximizing his enjoyment. Further more he has explained that finding out later there was a bogus log, doesn't effect his enjoyment.

 

I'm simply saying that it might be a waste of their time if the misinformation causes them to search for one cache instead of another that is more likely to give them greater pleasure. How significant that waste might be will depend on the particular circumstances.

And I'm simply saying that there isn't any waste unless your goal was to avoid DNFs and that while the you can avoid caches you think are more likely to end in DNF you can't really avoid DNFs.

deprovan almost got it when he gave points for enjoyment -

 

fun=1000, find=+1, value of fun with find=1001.

fun=1000, find=0, aggravation of discovering you were searching under false pretenses=-1000, value of fun without find=0.

The bad information makes it a waste of time, money, and effort.

One can be angry and disappointed over people posting bogus logs. Discovering bogus log influenced your choice of caches could even reduce the fun you had a after the fact. You went out looked for a cache and did not find it, so your fun is 1000 for the adventure and 0 for finding. Later you discover there was a bogus log. So now your fun is 1000 for the adventure, 0 for finding, and minus 1000 because someone lied and denied you from doing something else. We don't know what the fun of the other thing is, but presumably greater than zero. But I don't know how this becomes wasting time or money. You simply don't know what the fun of the something would have been because you didn't do it. But since you want to feel harmed by the bogus log you can say it took away any value that the hunt actually had. Then you can almost be sure that whatever it was you didn't do because of the bogus lot would have been more fun.

Link to comment

I recently checked the log of one of my caches and compared it to the online log. There are roughly 30 online logged finds that do not appear in the physical logbook, about half of the total finds logged online. Should I delete the finds that are logged online that do not appear in the physical log?

 

I got a email from a co who thought I could not have found his since they were 500 miles away from me. He deleted mine and did not consider that fact that I have 3 kids in 3 different states. And I did not do the whole series because it was a hard bunch of puzzles. :blink:

Link to comment
For many geocachers, it isn't about maximizing the odds that the hunt is successful. Instead, it's about maximizing their enjoyment while out geocaching.
Then why give all that grief to CR.

No one has given him grief for feeling that way about how he enjoys his trips.

 

I don't know how this becomes wasting time or money

I personally have never argued that fun and waste are joined at the hip, only that some people might have their fun ruined by such. This is why "altering history" was a loaded comment. I repeatedly said - one can have fun, have an enjoyable time, and yet feel that time or money was wasted; and I provided instances of how this is possible. I think the problem is you keep making them the same thing. They are not.

 

Even so, whether one has fun or not even finding out about a bogus find log is irrelevant to the question. That's an opinion about someone, not anything practical about how to help optimize the enjoyment for more people who go geocaching - eg, whether to delete false find logs.

Link to comment

.if misinformation causes me to search for one cache instead of another cache that's more likely to give me greater pleasure. In that case, I wasted my time doing something I otherwise wouldn't have done. (It's really not that complicated, is it?)

Looking at dprovan's post, let's create a Pleasure Index. Naturally, these numbers will vary from person to person, as different factors and preferences enter the equation, but I think we can utilize generic numbers just to demonstrate a point. Assume BillyBob's PI for a successful hunt, in an awesome location, with good company is 100. Now assume his PI for a regular DNF on that same cache is 90. Now assume that his PI on that cache, which could not be found, and whose selection was influenced by a phony log is 80. For this mythical cacher, any Pleasure Index above 50 is an enjoyable experience. So, whilst finding the cache is defenetely better, (higher PI), than either DNF scenario, BillyBob would not have wasted his time.

 

But what of his caching companion, BobbyJoe? He places more value in a successful hunt than his buddy BillyBob. BobbyJoe would feel a regular DNF was a 20, and a DNF based on phony logs would be a 1, at best. For BobbyJoe, both hunts would be a waste of time. Their other companion, RickyBobby, places importance in finds, though not quite as much as BobbyJoe. For RickyBobby, a regular DNF would be a 40, and a phony DNF would be a 20. For RickyBobby, both hunts would be a waste of time.

 

Supposedly, there is a cacher out there who would feel a regular DNF would be somewhere above a 50, (time not necessarily wasted), whilst the phony DNF would fall below 50. Though I've never met such a person, nor have I ever heard of such a person, based on the adamant insistence from a few posters in this thread, we'll assume that this person exists, and was not invented just to further the debate.

 

BillyBob sees this as a hobby which generates adventures, with a bonus of smilies. BobbyJoe and RickyBobby see this as a hobby which generates smilies, with a bonus of adventures.

 

It's really not that complicated, is it?

Link to comment

Clan. Clan. Clan!

You are saying that people either share your opinion that a geocaching trip is never a waste regardless of whether or not a geocache was actually there, or else they are somehow a "numbers cacher".

Bruce. Bruce. Bruce!

If the only contribution you can make to a debate is to constantly, and deliberately misstate the position of your opponent, just so you can continue to debate, you've already lost. Morally, it's the same as pointing out grammatical errors and/or improper spelling. (or, 'speling', if you prefer) :P

 

We are saying those are not the only two types of people! But you keep saying it is

Again, you misrepresent my position. :unsure:

 

Are you saying it's not worth the CO's time to delete false find logs because well the only people bothered by it are "numbers cachers"? I doubt you are. So why keep bringing it up?

I'm not sure how to answer this one. Since I've stated, repeatedly throughout this thread that cache owners should delete proven bogus logs, such a question seems like a more polite way of misrepresenting my position. Since you either did not see the countless times I stated that cache owners should delete false logs, or, you are choosing to ignore them, I feel that any answer I might give would be further ignored or not read. :unsure:

 

And yes, "numbers cacher" is a term most often used by people, from what I have seen in these forums over the last couple of years, in light of a disliked focus of caching, condescendingly, as if somehow these people don't truly appreciate what geocaching is or was all about.

I think you are confusing your terminology. Since you are the one using the term, I'll have to let you decide what it means. I prefer the term "numbers oriented". There is a derisive term for those who are numbers oriented. I won't share it here, as I feel that it is insulting, and does nothing to further the debate. A "numbers oriented" cacher is simply someone who places such a degree in the smilie that any other outcome could be viewed as wasteful. Finds are the primary motivator for the numbers oriented cacher. The adventures along the way are a secondary bonus. As I've stated, repeatedly, (and as you've ignored, repeatedly), there is nothing wrong with being numbers oriented. The term is not derisive, at all.

 

Your term, "numbers cacher", may, or may not, be derisive. :unsure:

 

Since I don't use it, at least not intentionally, I really can't say one way or the other. :unsure:

 

If you don't mean to be condescending in that light by using that term, great!

Which term? Numbers oriented, or numbers cacher? I use the former in a descriptive light, as you have. Of the two of us, you are the only one to use the latter. :unsure:

 

So you can stop saying that if someone thinks a geocaching trip is ever a waste that they are a "numbers cacher".

And we're back to deliberately misstating my position... :unsure:

Link to comment

But I don't know how this becomes wasting time or money.

986d1fe8-9130-4d94-a873-c6a2af110959.jpg

It helps if you have one of these. You could pop back in time an hour or so, and meet yourself on the caching trail. The conversation would be odd, but obviously interesting.

[View of Clan Riffster and his pals hiking toward a cache.]

Me: "Guys, Thanx for joining me. Isn't this fun?"

Pals: "Yup! It's a blast!"

[scene interrupted by another Clan Riffster materializing on the trail]

Me 2.0: "Stop!"

Me: "Uh..."

Me 2.0 "You're not having fun!"

Me: "Uh... Yeah, we are. We are geocaching, in a nice location, with good friends. Of course we're having fun"

Me 2.0: "You have to trust me! You think you're having fun, but really, you're not!"

Me: "And why should I trust some old, fat, crippled dude in a smelly hat?"

Me 2.0: "Uh... Just trust me. You ARE NOT having fun!

:lol::P:lol::P

Link to comment

I..I... don't know what just happened.

 

Which term? Numbers oriented, or numbers cacher? I use the former in a descriptive light, as you have. Of the two of us, you are the only one to use the latter. :unsure:

Ok you know what, you win on one point: You've never said "numbers cacher" in this thread.

 

But let's take a trip down equivocation memory lane...

 

For someone who is a numbers oriented cacher, the 'return' in this game is the +1 obtained when a find is logged.

----

For those folks, if they don't get the +1, then any time, effort and money spent trying is a waste.

----

My only disagreement was in regards to the theory that two hours spent having a blast getting to ground zero can somehow, instantly change to being not fun, unless one is a numbers oriented cacher, or has access to a wormhole through which they can rend the space/time continuum.

----

On the other hand, were I some numbers obsessed cacher, I could totally see your point. In that case, the numeric differences would be much greater. Because of the infatuation with the glorious +1

----

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

----

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

----

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

----

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.

----

In my opinion, those in the latter group [re: go on an adventure, vs increase your find count] are too obsessed with numbers, though, I don't doubt that those folks in that group would disagree.

----

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 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.

----

In that case, (again, if I were an obsessed, entitled, numbers oriented cacher), then, yes, I suppose I could feel that my time was wasted.

As I've stated, repeatedly, (and as you've ignored, repeatedly), there is nothing wrong with being numbers oriented. The term is not derisive, at all.

Get the picture yet?

Understand why so many are replying against your statements and derision against "numbers (oriented/obsessed) cachers"?

Understand why we are saying there are more than two types of people?

Understand why we are constantly saying that you can be a genuine geocacher, have fun, and still feel time or money can be a waste without being this stereotypical "numbers (oriented/obsessed) cacher" you repeatedly state (at the very least imply) everyone is who doesn't think you? (read over those quotes again)

 

We are saying those are not the only two types of people! But you keep saying it is

Again, you misrepresent my position. :unsure:

Not as far as I'm concerned. If you'd like to alter your position, or clarify your position so we can be properly and respectfully corrected, please do. I have no qualms against admitting being wrong.

 

* Are you saying it's not worth the CO's time to delete false find logs because well the only people bothered by it are "numbers cachers"? I doubt you are. So why keep bringing it up?

 

I'm not sure how to answer this one. Since I've stated, repeatedly throughout this thread that cache owners should delete proven bogus logs, such a question seems like a more polite way of misrepresenting my position. Since you either did not see the countless times I stated that cache owners should delete false logs, or, you are choosing to ignore them, I feel that any answer I might give would be further ignored or not read. :unsure:

So instead of avoiding the answer, provide it, and we'll find out.

* Are you saying it's not worth the CO's time to delete false find logs because well the only people bothered by it are "numbers cachers"?

 

Put together, that is the implication of everything you've said on the matter in this thread. If that's not what you mean, then please clarify.

 

Here's my guess at your clarifying answer:

No, I'm not saying it's not worth the CO's time to delete false find logs - I've said they should numerous times. But I think that anyone who feels their time geocaching was wasted due to being mislead by a bogus find log is really only obsessed about the numbers and won't be satisfied unless they get that +1 smiley.

 

If that's true, then:

1. Everything after "But I think..." is opinion-argument-bait and irrelevant to the discussion.

2. That opinion about people is what we take issue with.

 

If it's not true, then correct me (because I too hate when people put words in my mouth), and please clarify.

 

Finds are the primary motivator for the numbers oriented cacher.

You know, to attempt to bring something a little new to this confusion - I would say no.

I'd call myself a numbers-oriented cacher (not numbers-obsessed).

I enjoy challenges.

I enjoy looking over the map, attempting to locate candidate caches that help me complete a challenge I've taken on as a personal goal.

I am 100% perfectly ok with logging a DNF.

I enjoy geocaching.

I enjoy adventures.

I don't enjoy having time or money wasted going on hunts for caches that do not exist.

It is not about the +1.

It is not about the smiley.

It's about, you know, geocaching.

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

I've recorded this thread on my DVR for viewing at a later date.

Good idea. Because you might find out is was bogus and then you wouldn't have wasted your time reading it.

 

I don't think the issue is whether or not bogus logs misrepresent the state of the cache and might cause someone to search for a cache they would otherwise skip. The issue is more of what constitutes a waste of time.

 

Forget the bogus logs for a minute. If you go look for a cache and later on you find out the cache was missing, was that a waste of time?

 

Some people apparently feel this way. I've personally receive offers from cache owners whose cache I DNF to change my DNF to a find since they confirmed the cache was missing. Why? I presume they feel that I have "wasted" my time looking for a cache that isn't there and they thing I should get a find for that. Then there are cache owners who put on the cache page some alternate logging requirement like posting picture if the cache is missing or if access to ground zero is closed off. They don't want people making trip all the way to the cache site to "waste" their time if the cache is unavailable. And there are cachers who search for a cache and decide that it is likely missing. So they leave a replacement cache - not only so they haven't "wasted" their own time but also so subsequent cachers will not "waste" theirs.

 

I'm going to assume that most of the people who are participating in this thread would agree that even though the cache turned out to be missing, a DNF does not mean you have wasted your time.

 

So what is different when there is a bogus log? Not much really. The bogus log provides misinrformation about the state of the cache. It can cause someone to search for a cache they may have otherwise avoided. So they might look for a cache that isn't there.

 

If you believe it is a waste of time to seach for a cache that isn't there, you can claim that if it weren't for the bogus log you would have looked for a different cache (or have done something besides geocaching). Perhaps you would not have wasted your time.

 

If you don't believe it is a waste of time to seach for cache that later turn out to have been missing, then the bogus log simply means you chose a cache that is more likely to be missing. You might be uspset that your estimate of the likelihood of a successful hunt was thrown off by the bogus information. You can be dissapointed that anyone would lie about finding a cache. But you haven't wasted time.

 

I think this the the sticking point, people who claim that missing caches and DNFs are part of the game and it isn't wasting time just because it turns out later that the cache was missing, all of a sudden want this to be a waste becauses they chose to search for a cache that was more likely to be missing than the bogus log made it seem.

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment
I'm going to assume that most of the people who are participating in this thread would agree that even though the cache turned out to be missing, a DNF does not mean you have wasted your time.

I'd agree for the most part, except I think it's faulty to presume it's all or nothing.

There may be people who would never consider that circumstance a waste of time;

There may be people for whom it would really depend on the circumstances surrounding any particular trip

And I think we all agree that numbers-obsessed cachers may always consider it a waste if they didn't end up with a find.

 

So what is different when there is a bogus log? Not much really. The bogus log provides misinrformation about the state of the cache. It can cause someone to search for a cache they may have otherwise avoided. So they might look for a cache that isn't there.

 

If you believe it is a waste of time to seach for a cache that isn't there, you can claim that if it weren't for the bogus log you would have looked for a different cache (or have done something besides geocaching). Perhaps you would not have wasted your time.

Precisely

 

If you don't believe it is a waste of time to seach for cache that later turn out to have been missing, then the bogus log simply means you chose a cache that is more likely to be missing. You might be uspset that your estimate of the likelihood of a successful hunt was thrown off by the bogus information. You can be dissapointed that anyone would lie about finding a cache. But you haven't wasted time.

Precisely

 

I think this the the sticking point, people who claim that missing caches and DNFs are part of the game and it isn't wasting time just because it turns out later that the cache was missing, all of a sudden want this to be a waste becauses they chose to search for a cache that was more likely to be missing than the bogus log made it seem.

This distinction is really just a difference in priorities when geocaching. Either way is perfectly fine -

The former people likely have a happier time geocaching in general because they ultimately don't care if a cache they search for is there or not, they just enjoy the 'journey'.

The latter may be upset on finding out a cache they searched for was missing because they ultimately expect that the log history is an accurate representation of a cache status and make judgement calls for their trip decisions based on that expectation, on an accurate recent status of a cache - so they may consider a trip a waste if they find out they were mislead and there was zero chance of even the possibility of finding the cache.

 

Regardless of "numbers" orientation, "waste" is fundamentally a matter of priorities and expectations. Different people are, well, different.

Some consider no smiley a wasted trip.

Some consider alternate plans needlessly rescheduled, or funds potentially used elsewhere a wasted trip.

Some don't consider anything a wasted trip if they had fun.

I think that's about as objective as you can get looking at the effects of bogus logs.

 

Do bogus logs hurt the game? They certainly can.

Do they hurt your game? Well that's up to you.

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

Me searching for a cache that's not there is definitely not a waste of time, with or without any false find logs. Me reading 165 Forum Posts on the matter probably is.

 

False finds are bad and should be deleted, but they are not the end of the world. The cacher is responsible for what caches they seek and should do the appropriate investigation. When there is a find after a string of DNFs, it's probably a false log, a throw down, or a difficult cache - only one of which this forum approves. Everything else in this thread has been splitting gnat's hairs.

Link to comment

Oh, Toz. Just when I thought you were sort of understanding the issue, you wrote this...

 

I'm going to assume that most of the people who are participating in this thread would agree that even though the cache turned out to be missing, a DNF does not mean you have wasted your time.

The world isn't black-and-white; it's full of colors. A DNF in and of itself doesn't necessarily mean I wasted my time. It's the likelihood that a search will result in a DNF that matters to me. If I was 99% sure I would DNF a cache, then there are many caches out there that I wouldn't search for because I would consider them a waste of my time. On the other hand, if I estimated my DNF chances at 1%, then I'd search for many of those caches that I otherwise would have skipped.

 

So what is different when there is a bogus log? Not much really. The bogus log provides misinrformation about the state of the cache. It can cause someone to search for a cache they may have otherwise avoided. So they might look for a cache that isn't there.

Yep, and that can make a significant difference. If I had accurate information, I might have skipped that cache and spent that time searching for a cache that was more likely to give me more pleasure. The bogus log might cause me to waste my time.

 

If you believe it is a waste of time to seach for a cache that isn't there, you can claim that if it weren't for the bogus log you would have looked for a different cache (or have done something besides geocaching). Perhaps you would not have wasted your time.

Close, but no cigar. I don't think it's necessarily a waste of time to search for a cache that isn't there. I think it's a waste of my time searching for a cache that very likely isn't there when, if I had known that, I would have spent my time doing something that was more likely to be more pleasurable.

 

If you don't believe it is a waste of time to seach for cache that later turn out to have been missing, then the bogus log simply means you chose a cache that is more likely to be missing. You might be uspset that your estimate of the likelihood of a successful hunt was thrown off by the bogus information. You can be dissapointed that anyone would lie about finding a cache. But you haven't wasted time.

I'm upset when a bogus log causes me to opt to search for a cache that I would have skipped in favor of another cache that was more likely to give me more pleasure. If you don't like calling that a "waste" of my time, then call it an "inefficient use" of my time.

 

Perhaps you might understand this concept better if I put it in more concrete mathematical terms. Suppose I have time to find one cache in a particular area that has only two caches.

 

If I find Cache A, then I'll receive 100 happiness units (HUs). But if I DNF Cache A, then I'll receive only 80 HUs. I estimate there's a 75% chance that I'll find Cache A. My "expected value" (EV) for Cache A is 95 HUs: (.75*100)+(.25*80)=95.

 

Cache B will provide me with 92 HUs for a find and 82 HUs for a DNF. I estimate there's a 90% chance that I'll find Cache B. My EV for Cache B is 91 HUs: (.90*92)+(.10*82)=91.

 

Logically, I opt to search for Cache A, since, on average, I expect to receive 4 more units of happiness (95 instead of 91).

 

However, what if Cache A's most recent log was a bogus find? If I had known that, then I would have estimated my chances of finding Cache A to be only 25%. That would have dropped my EV for Cache A from 95 down to 85: (.25*100)+(.75*80)=85.

 

If I had known about the bogus log, then I logically would have opted to search for Cache B, since, on average, I'd have expected to receive 6 more units of happiness (91 instead of 85). The bogus log caused me to "inefficiently use" my time by going after Cache A rather than Cache B.

Edited by CanadianRockies
Link to comment

If I find Cache A, then I'll receive 100 happiness units (HUs). But if I DNF Cache A, then I'll receive only 80 HUs. I estimate there's a 75% chance that I'll find Cache A. My "expected value" (EV) for Cache A is 95 HUs: (.75*100)+(.25*80)=95.

 

Cache B will provide me with 92 HUs for a find and 82 HUs for a DNF. I estimate there's a 90% chance that I'll find Cache B. My EV for Cache B is 91 HUs: (.90*92)+(.10*82)=91.

 

Logically, I opt to search for Cache A, since, on average, I expect to receive 4 more units of happiness (95 instead of 91).

 

However, what if Cache A's most recent log was a bogus find? If I had known that, then I would have estimated my chances of finding Cache A to be only 25%. That would have dropped my EV for Cache A from 95 down to 85: (.25*100)+(.75*80)=85.

 

If I had known about the bogus log, then I logically would have opted to search for Cache B, since, on average, I'd have expected to receive 6 more units of happiness (91 instead of 85). The bogus log caused me to "inefficiently use" my time by going after Cache A rather than Cache B.

 

Is there an App for that?

Link to comment

Perhaps you might understand this concept better if I put it in more concrete mathematical terms. Suppose I have time to find one cache in a particular area that has only two caches.

 

If I find Cache A, then I'll receive 100 happiness units (HUs). But if I DNF Cache A, then I'll receive only 80 HUs. I estimate there's a 75% chance that I'll find Cache A. My "expected value" (EV) for Cache A is 95 HUs: (.75*100)+(.25*80)=95.

 

Cache B will provide me with 92 HUs for a find and 82 HUs for a DNF. I estimate there's a 90% chance that I'll find Cache B. My EV for Cache B is 91 HUs: (.90*92)+(.10*82)=91.

 

Logically, I opt to search for Cache A, since, on average, I expect to receive 4 more units of happiness (95 instead of 91).

 

However, what if Cache A's most recent log was a bogus find? If I had known that, then I would have estimated my chances of finding Cache A to be only 25%. That would have dropped my EV for Cache A from 95 down to 85: (.25*100)+(.75*80)=85.

 

If I had known about the bogus log, then I logically would have opted to search for Cache B, since, on average, I'd have expected to receive 6 more units of happiness (91 instead of 85). The bogus log caused me to "inefficiently use" my time by going after Cache A rather than Cache B.

I don't think you understand estimated probabilities.

 

I agree that that bogus logs may cause you estimate different probabilities and select a different cache to search for. I've stated this all along. Thanks for the example with numbers <_<

 

My point is that you haven't wasted your time because you picked a different cache. You've simply picked a diffferent cache.

 

Of course the happiness units for finding a cache are a function of your estimated probability as well. If you get 100 HUs for finding a cache you estimated at 75%, then wouldn't it make sense that you would get more HUs if you estimated the odds of finding the cache at 25%. And perhaps the unhappiness at a DNF is not as low, since you expect that a DNF is likely. Say without the bogus log you get 120 HUs if you find cache A and 84 if you DNF. You estimate the EV of the cache to be (.25*120)+(.75*84)=93. Not as good as the with the bougus log but still higher than the alternative cache.

 

Note however that I either find the cache or I don't find the cache.

                | find  | DNF
  bogus log     |  100  |  80
  no bogus log  |  120  |  84

In this case the bogus log actually cost me happiness. I may not have wasted my time (since I would picked cache A in either case) but I'vee been robbed of 20 happiness points if I find the cache and of 4 happiness points if I DNF it. Bogus logs are bad because they reduce they hapiness units of the hunt. :ph34r:

 

Now that we've made up some numbers, what really happens is that people are terrible estimators of probablity. Most tend to give a higher probability of failure to a cache with several DNFs than is really the case. And similarly, given a single find after some DNFs, they estimate a higher probablity of success than is really the case (in part because they don't consider the single log might be bogus). So in fact they tend to avoid caches that they shouldn't and to hunt caches that they would otherwise avoid. Only when they don't find the cache and they later find out that is is one they would have avoided had there not been an alleged bogus log, do they feel that they wasted their time.

 

There is a lot of effort being expended trying to prove that someone could feel that they wasted their time even if they aren't trying to avoid DNFs but are just tying to maximum their fun. My argument is not what a person might feel but whether they should actually perceive it as waste. If you believe a hunt that ends in a DNF because the cache is missing is a waste of time, then if you DNF a cache you chose to hunt based on a bogus log and you would have decided to do something else if there wasn't the bogus log, the bogus log wasted your time. If you think a search ending in a DNF where you didn't know whether the cache was missing at the time is not a waste of time, then even if later on you find out the cache was missing you haven't wasted your time.

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment

omigosh.

:wacko::back:

 

Why does this have to be so complicated?

 

How about this question -

Is it reasonable for any geocacher to expect that a geocache's online log history be an accurate representation of the cache's state?

 

Maybe that's all this extra-argument-stuff boils down to.

 

If you believe that to be a reasonable expectation, then it's very very feasible for people to feel time or money can be wasted, given any set of personal circumstances related to the trip that are entirely their own business.

 

If you don't believe that to be a reasonable expectation, then you encourage those people to follow your advice and not trust that any previously posted log is accurate by default; or perhaps rather that they should simply more value getting outside and searching, if they choose, regardless of the state of the cache.

 

If that's the actual question - then that debate will never end, because some people feel it's a valid expectation, and clearly others do not.

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

I agree that that bogus logs may cause you estimate different probabilities and select a different cache to search for. I've stated this all along.... My point is that you haven't wasted your time because you picked a different cache. You've simply picked a diffferent cache.

That's where you and I differ. When misinformation causes me to search for a cache that will probably bring me less happiness than another cache, then I consider that misinformation to have wasted my time.

 

Maybe the problem is that you're thinking like Clan Riffster. Maybe you feel "waste" is only an on/off switch (i.e., unhappiness = waste). In that case, if you will be happy searching for either Cache A or Cache B, then you cannot waste your time no matter which cache you search for.

 

I'm saying that "waste" also has a relative dimension. If searching for Cache B is likely to make you happier than searching for Cache A and you only have time to search for one cache, then searching for Cache A is a waste (or "inefficient use") of your time.

 

I don't know how to explain it any simpler than that.

 

So much for a two-sentence nutshell. :(

Link to comment

How about this question -

Is it reasonable for any geocacher to expect that a geocache's online log history be an accurate representation of the cache's state?

 

Maybe that's all this extra-argument-stuff boils down to.

 

Could be. Any algorithm that someone uses to determine which caches are more likely to result in fun or which cache has the highest expected happiness value, is going to be effected by unreliable data.

 

But it isn't just bogus logs. We know that many people don't log their DNFs, while others will log a DNF because they got caught in traffic and never made it to ground zero. These actions/inactions have the same effect as the bogus log does in CanadianRockies' example.

 

I do agree, and have said so, that geocaching depends to a degree on trust. Is there really a cache there? Did the last finder re-hide the cache as he found it? If they traded, did they trade fairly? Leaving bogus logs is not excusable, and cache owners should delete them when they know about them. But in a internet based game where all you need is an email address in order to sign up for an account, it is unreasonable to think you can prevent them. It is unnecessary to look for other reasons they might be bad. The claims of waste involve not only unlikely hypothetical situations, but people using oddball algorithms for selecting caches to hunt that are going to be sensitive not only to bogus finds but to both over zealous and lax reporting of DNF. Add to that, that I still think the use of the term "waste" in this case is debatable.

I agree that that bogus logs may cause you estimate different probabilities and select a different cache to search for. I've stated this all along.... My point is that you haven't wasted your time because you picked a different cache. You've simply picked a diffferent cache.

That's where you and I differ. When misinformation causes me to search for a cache that will probably bring me less happiness than another cache, then I consider that misinformation to have wasted my time.

 

Maybe the problem is that you're thinking like Clan Riffster. Maybe you feel "waste" is only an on/off switch (i.e., unhappiness = waste). In that case, if you will be happy searching for either Cache A or Cache B, then you cannot waste your time no matter which cache you search for.

 

I'm saying that "waste" also has a relative dimension. If searching for Cache B is likely to make you happier than searching for Cache A and you only have time to search for one cache, then searching for Cache A is a waste (or "inefficient use") of your time.

 

I don't know how to explain it any simpler than that.

 

So much for a two-sentence nutshell. :(

Sure it is possible that Riffster and I don't think it can be a waste if you are doing something you enjoy.

 

If you want to have an imaginary scale of how much fun you might have under different scenarios and believe that if you only had honest logs as input to some algorithm you use to select the cache most likely to give you the most fun (or in your case "the cache that has the highest expected happiness") then you can say that false logs altered the choice and you missed (or at least delayed) your opportunity to hunt the cache with the presumably higher happiness factor. You could say you wasted an opportunity.

 

I just don't believe anyone keeps a list of expected happiness of caches or that example you gave would ever happen. It's just another extremely unlikely hypothetical.

 

A more realistic situation are those cachers who use a GSAK macro to look at the last log (or perhaps the last few logs) and eliminate those caches that don't have a recent find. I can only guess that these people are trying to minimize the chances of a DNF. They may believe that lack of recent find is a good indicator that the cache is more likely to be missing, and they use their algorithm to avoid caches they believe have a higher chance of being missing. If they end up looking for a cache because of a bogus log and they don't find it, they may feel they have wasted their time by looking for a missing cache.

Link to comment

I just don't believe anyone keeps a list of expected happiness of caches or that example you gave would ever happen. It's just another extremely unlikely hypothetical.

I don't keep an explicit list of cache expected values (EVs). For one reason, those EVs are subject to considerable change depending on weather, where I am, whom I'm with, etc. But I do apply the EV concept more often than not when I go geocaching. I don't make precise estimates, but I do have a rough idea of how fun each cache would be to find (or not find) and how likely I am to find it. Trying to be more precise isn't worth my effort, but that type of cost/benefit discussion is a bit off topic.

 

A more realistic situation are those cachers who use a GSAK macro to look at the last log (or perhaps the last few logs) and eliminate those caches that don't have a recent find. I can only guess that these people are trying to minimize the chances of a DNF. They may believe that lack of recent find is a good indicator that the cache is more likely to be missing, and they use their algorithm to avoid caches they believe have a higher chance of being missing. If they end up looking for a cache because of a bogus log and they don't find it, they may feel they have wasted their time by looking for a missing cache.

By Jove! You've almost got it! Why are those people trying to avoid caches that are more likely to be missing? Could it be because those types of searches are less likely to make them as happy as those with better likelihoods of being found? If you can just see the connection between a higher chance of a DNF and being less happy, then you should be able to understand the EV concept.

 

No, these people aren't doing precise EV calculations. But they're applying the basic EV concept when they choose which geocaches to search for.

Edited by CanadianRockies
Link to comment

Ok you know what, you win on one point: You've never said "numbers cacher" in this thread.

That must've been painful for you. Thank you for that.

 

Get the picture yet?

Oh yeah. But probably not the picture you're thinking of. :lol:

 

Understand why so many are replying against your statements and derision against "numbers (oriented/obsessed) cachers"?

You do understand that there is a difference between numbers oriented and numbers obsessed, right? If you are unable to grasp the distinction between those two, then perhaps I finally understand why this debate has devolved.

 

Understand why we are saying there are more than two types of people?

Do you understand that there are over 7 billion types of people?

 

Understand why we are constantly saying that you can be a genuine geocacher, have fun, and still feel time or money can be a waste without being this stereotypical "numbers (oriented/obsessed) cacher" you repeatedly state (at the very least imply) everyone is who doesn't think you?

It's pretty disappointing that you can only continue this debate by combining numbers oriented and numbers obscessed cachers, then argue as if they were the same type of person. Weren't you saying, just a short while ago, that folks should recognize the differences betwixt different types of people? Is this one of those classic 'pot meets kettle' moments?

 

If you'd like to alter your position, or clarify your position so we can be properly and respectfully corrected, please do. I have no qualms against admitting being wrong.

Didn't you tell me, repeatedly, that I should not offer my opinions?

Especially when I offered, and clarified my opinions?

Edited by Clan Riffster
Link to comment

So instead of avoiding the answer, provide it, and we'll find out.

* Are you saying it's not worth the CO's time to delete false find logs  because well the only people bothered by it are "numbers cachers"?

Have I said this, or even anything remotely close to this? You are so absolutely committed to misrepresenting my position, (so you'll have something you can argue against), that I doubt you would recognize my position if you tripped over it. :lol:  But, just in case, I'll post it again. Cache owners should delete proven false logs. Since you apparently didn't see this the last half dozen or so times I've posted it, I thought I would put it in bold text for you. Hopefully it'll sink in this time. :huh: 

 

Put together, that is the implication of everything you've said on the matter in this thread. 

If that's not what you mean, then please clarify.

Rather than try to spin what I've said into some interpreted 'implication', why not focus on what I really did say? I ask, because you got it so glaringly wrong on so many levels. Here's a view of our conversation, from an outsiders position:

Me: "1+ 3 = 4"

Bruce: "So, you're saying 7 + 5 = 2?"

Me: "No. That's not what I'm saying."

Bruce: "Stop saying 9 x 12 = 3!"

Me: "Bruce. Dude. I'm saying 1 + 3 = 4. Nothing more."

Bruce: "Stop posting your opinions!"

Me: "Uh... What?"

Bruce: "Well, if you're not saying 54 - 91 = 8, what are you saying?"

Me: "That 3 + 1 = 4."

Bruce: "STOP! JUST STOP!"

 

Should I repeat myself, again! :huh: 

 

1. Everything after "But I think..." is opinion-argument-bait and irrelevant to the discussion.

Unless you are the walking Wikipedia of all things geocaching, is not your proclamations also opinions? Or, do you believe that any thought which forms in your head bears the weight of absolute truth? This whole thread is four pages of opinions. As best I can tell, that's how forums work. Someone posts something, then others offer their opinions on the matter. You have offered your opinions throughout this thread, without me once suggesting you should not do so. Shouldn't you at least pretend to the same courtesy?

 

You'll note that, while I might disagree with your opinion, I can still respect your right to post it.

 

2. That opinion about people is what we take issue with.

The opinion that doesn't match your opinion is what you take issue with... :huh: 

 

I'd call myself a numbers-oriented cacher (not numbers-obsessed).

Wait. Weren't you suggesting earlier that they were the same thing? :huh: 

Link to comment

Clan, you're just trolling me now aren't you?

 

It's as if the comment you replied to just is not computing. I mean, the grammar, the points, somehow you're seeing them completely opposite to what's actually been typed.

Read the entire comment - even the very quotes of your own which you conveniently did not address.

 

You do understand that there is a difference between numbers oriented and numbers obsessed, right?

Everything - everything - in my comments have been explicitly stating that.

Everything - everything - I quoted of yours in the above comment was you equivocating them.

You should be asking yourself that question. dry.gif

 

Do you understand that there are over 7 billion types of people?

Yes, there are over 7 billion people.

You do understand how categorizing works, right? And the difference between categorizing and stereotyping, right?

You do understand that there are 2 types of sexes, right? Male and female?

You do understand that given 26 letters of the alphabet, there are 26 types of people whose names may start with those letters of the alphabet, right?

You do understand that of people who have a driver's license, there are 2 types of people, right? People who have a car, and people who don't?

You do understand that of geocachers, your descriptions imply two types of people, right? (please, for the love of God, see your quotes above)

 

Cache owners should delete proven false logs.

You apparently didn't see that I acknowledged you said that, and was not asking you to restate that but to stop grouping everyone who doesn't think like you into "numbers (oriented/obsessed) cachers".

Can you not just leave it at that statement?

 

Wait. Weren't you suggesting earlier that they were the same thing?

No.

You really do seem to truly enjoy putting words in peoples' mouths.

 

:blink:

 

I don't understand why an "old, fat, crippled guy with a smelly hat" really wants to continuously push this point that anyone who might possibly care about wasted time or money while geocaching must only be in it for the numbers - or, to just plainly put it in your own condescending, insulting words - "an obsessed, entitled, numbers oriented cacher".

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment
Do you understand that there are over 7 billion types of people?

Yes, there are over 7 billion people.

You do understand how categorizing works, right? And the difference between categorizing and stereotyping, right?

OOO! OO! (raises hand)

Yes it just like categorizing caches based on incomplete and sometime bogus information. There are some that you categorize as likely to be missing and other ones that you categorize as likely to be there. And sure enough - when the information you have changes (whether from a bogus online log or from an honest log) a cache might change from one category to another.

 

I will say there are two categories of people - real people and hypothetical people. A lot of time has been spent in this thread discussing hypothetical people. And perhaps a little bit where some real people pretend that they are hypothetical people but when you dig a bit you find out that they aren't. The best I've seen is that hypothetical people might be using the same methods to select caches that real people do. Though even there, a little digging and it turns out the real people don't actually use the methods they described.

 

I don't understand why an "old, fat, crippled guy with a smelly hat" really wants to continuously push this point that anyone who might possibly care about wasted time or money while geocaching must only be in it for the numbers - or, to just plainly put it in your own condescending, insulting words - "an obsessed, entitled, numbers oriented cacher".

I would like to point out the I am often on the opposite side of Clan Riffster in forum debates. I must say that I really enjoy the back and forth with him and have never found him condescending. Sometime he uses language to describe certain categories of cachers that you have to parse carefully. If not they can come across as condescending, but they aren't really. The biggest problem is just like some real people self identify as hypothetical people, there are people who will self identify with the groups Clan Riffster is describing and then take umbrage with something he said. I've come to learn to be very careful using the 'P' word, because people seem to self-identify with it, despite the fact that very few cache owners actually fit the definition.

Link to comment

For the sake of my sanity and peace of mind, I am taking an indefinite hiatus from this thread.

:tired:

The points have been made. Points have been addressed repeatedly.

It's hopeless, and I'm getting a welt from all this *headdesk*. I have other more important stressful matters and priorities in my life right now than to always get anxious whenever a new reply is posted. Anyone who knows me personally knows what I'm referring to. If you want to know, then PM me. This argument is no longer worth my time or attention.

Farewell.

 

*and the crowd goes wild*

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

Have I said this, or even anything remotely close to this? You are so absolutely committed to misrepresenting my position, (so you'll have something you can argue against), that I doubt you would recognize my position if you tripped over it. :lol: But, just in case, I'll post it again. Cache owners should delete proven false logs. Since you apparently didn't see this the last half dozen or so times I've posted it, I thought I would put it in bold text for you. Hopefully it'll sink in this time. :huh:

 

Wait, what? :huh:

 

To date, I have never conducted an inventory of a logbook in one of my caches, comparing the signatures to the online logs. I would rather bathe in freshly roasted sand spurs than be that anal. I don't get into hobbies to increase my stress. Quite the opposite, really.

Link to comment

For the sake of my sanity and peace of mind, I am taking an indefinite hiatus from this thread.

:tired:

The points have been made. Points have been addressed repeatedly.

It's hopeless, and I'm getting a welt from all this *headdesk*. I have other more important stressful matters and priorities in my life right now than to always get anxious whenever a new reply is posted. Anyone who knows me personally knows what I'm referring to. If you want to know, then PM me. This argument is no longer worth my time or attention.

Farewell.

 

*and the crowd goes wild*

 

We have a winnah ! :P

 

Who posted in: Should CO's Delete False Find Logs?

 

Clan Riffster 32

thebruce0 30

Link to comment

Have I said this, or even anything remotely close to this? You are so absolutely committed to misrepresenting my position, (so you'll have something you can argue against), that I doubt you would recognize my position if you tripped over it. :lol: But, just in case, I'll post it again. Cache owners should delete proven false logs. Since you apparently didn't see this the last half dozen or so times I've posted it, I thought I would put it in bold text for you. Hopefully it'll sink in this time. :huh:

 

Wait, what? :huh:

 

To date, I have never conducted an inventory of a logbook in one of my caches, comparing the signatures to the online logs. I would rather bathe in freshly roasted sand spurs than be that anal. I don't get into hobbies to increase my stress. Quite the opposite, really.

The two statements are not mutually exclusive. :P

Seriously though. Yes, it is my official opinion that cache owners should delete proven bogus logs. The guidelines say we should, and I tend to support following the guidelines. To date, I have not had any proven bogus logs on any of my caches. True, some have had me scratching my head, and and a couple might have generated an eye roll or two, but I prefer to give the benefit of the doubt regarding what other players consider a "Find". My standards, ( for caches I hunt), are likely much stricter than the average, though my standards for caches I own is likely far more liberal than the average.

Link to comment

If Geocachers could use a 4 digit code put into the cache itself i.e. a small laminated piece of paper (waterproof) or written on the log, a 4 digit number that the cache finder has to input in order to log a find online. i.e When they click 'Found It' a pop-up window appears asking for the 4 digit code.. If the cacher doesn't input this code, then it can't be logged as a find. If the Code isn't in the cache, then a note or maintenance log should be written. If the CO is kind enough and believes the Cacher did find the cache then they can give the code to the Cacher in order to log a find.

Link to comment
If Geocachers could use a 4 digit code put into the cache itself i.e. a small laminated piece of paper (waterproof) or written on the log, a 4 digit number that the cache finder has to input in order to log a find online. i.e When they click 'Found It' a pop-up window appears asking for the 4 digit code.. If the cacher doesn't input this code, then it can't be logged as a find. If the Code isn't in the cache, then a note or maintenance log should be written. If the CO is kind enough and believes the Cacher did find the cache then they can give the code to the Cacher in order to log a find.
This is being discussed in the other thread (which you created): Optional Paper Log Free Micro Caches: Use a 4 digit code to log a cache find instead.
Link to comment

If Geocachers could use a 4 digit code put into the cache itself i.e. a small laminated piece of paper (waterproof) or written on the log, a 4 digit number that the cache finder has to input in order to log a find online. i.e When they click 'Found It' a pop-up window appears asking for the 4 digit code.. If the cacher doesn't input this code, then it can't be logged as a find. If the Code isn't in the cache, then a note or maintenance log should be written. If the CO is kind enough and believes the Cacher did find the cache then they can give the code to the Cacher in order to log a find.

 

No secret code ALR allowed. If you have that little trust in the finders of a cache, maybe geocaching isn't a game/hobby for you.

Link to comment

If Geocachers could use a 4 digit code put into the cache itself i.e. a small laminated piece of paper (waterproof) or written on the log, a 4 digit number that the cache finder has to input in order to log a find online. i.e When they click 'Found It' a pop-up window appears asking for the 4 digit code.. If the cacher doesn't input this code, then it can't be logged as a find. If the Code isn't in the cache, then a note or maintenance log should be written. If the CO is kind enough and believes the Cacher did find the cache then they can give the code to the Cacher in order to log a find.

 

This just means the unsuitable containers end up trashed even sooner than they currently do.

 

On reflection, maybe that's not such a bad thing.

Link to comment

Lord people, you put too much into this. The rules are find the cache, sign the log sheet, enter the log. If not, delete the online log, that simple. Unless of course there is a note online saying.."log paper full, too wet etc.". Then as the CO, get out there and maintain (and maybe sign the log on behalf of those that could not). Quit reading so much into this.

Link to comment

Lord people, you put too much into this. The rules are find the cache, sign the log sheet, enter the log. If not, delete the online log, that simple. Unless of course there is a note online saying.."log paper full, too wet etc.". Then as the CO, get out there and maintain (and maybe sign the log on behalf of those that could not). Quit reading so much into this.

You pull up a thread that is 3 years old, to post that people are overreacting? :unsure:

Link to comment

[quote name='TriciaG' timestamp='1489868484' post='5642257'

You pull up a thread that is 3 years old, to post that people are overreacting? :unsure:

 

Strange, I agree....

 

Now that I am here, I think it IS still fine to delete a bogus log.....because it's bogus......fake.......it never happened tongue.gif

 

Link to comment

Lord people, you put too much into this. The rules are find the cache, sign the log sheet, enter the log. If not, delete the online log, that simple. Unless of course there is a note online saying.."log paper full, too wet etc.". Then as the CO, get out there and maintain (and maybe sign the log on behalf of those that could not). Quit reading so much into this.

You pull up a thread that is 3 years old, to post that people are overreacting? :unsure:

 

Three years ago or three days ago, many people here do over react. Your post is proof of that.

Link to comment

Lord people, you put too much into this. The rules are find the cache, sign the log sheet, enter the log. If not, delete the online log, that simple. Unless of course there is a note online saying.."log paper full, too wet etc.". Then as the CO, get out there and maintain (and maybe sign the log on behalf of those that could not). Quit reading so much into this.

You pull up a thread that is 3 years old, to post that people are overreacting? :unsure:

 

Three years ago or three days ago, many people here do over react. Your post is proof of that.

My post is proof of that? I'm disgusted and ashamed that you would consider my little, bland post to be an overreaction! How could you?!? Oh, the inhumanity of it all!!

 

:lol:

Link to comment

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...