Right cache, wrong container.

[+tozainamboku]

Well there's just too much crying over NAs and deleted logs these days anyhow. I had a few cachers throw a temper tantrum because my cache was missing and I wouldn't award them a find for arriving at GZ. I can see both sides here, and one takes much more guts than the other.

For me, one case is facing the problem... another is looking away from the problem!

One is perceiving a problem based on their particular definition of find and a puritan idea about the online log, while the other perceives no problem because they don't see it interfere with the game.

 

I believe some people have had some good points on why leaving a throwdown is not good for the game (other that they get the knickers of puritans in a twist when someone logs a find for leaving a throwdown). The only reason I've heard to delete logs of people who find the throwdown and innocently log that as a find is to make the puritan cache owners underwear fit comfortably.

 

I can understand that people have different views about when they would use the find log and why they might that unless the cache owner formally accepts an unsolicited replacement that it is not the cache. While people are free to take a literalist view for their logging, it is when the literalist becomes a cache owner that issues come up. When people who are taking a less serious view of the game and for whom a find count is not a score for comparing two cachers but instead the result of the hunt as viewed by the logger get a log deleted dispute begin. For now TPTB are generally accepting of many puritan ideas and allow the deletion of logs, while at the same time ecouraging a more liberal view of the find log be used. That is not to say TPTB support allowing any find log, and you are right to point out that cache owners are ask to delete logs that are bogus, counterfeit, off-topic, or otherwise inappropriate. However, I believe that intent is to not use the most literal/puritanical definition but to take a broad view of what is a find.

[+sbell111]

Before you go back to you narrative that deleting a false log isn't punishment. It is instead just a factual correction that shouldn't bother anyone, please take note of NYPaddleCacher's point that many caches are found in locations that a person may never return to. Many people travel far and wide and may just have enough time to find a cache or two in each exotic location.

 

So... If I go to the USA, because I am away from home, I am allowed to make a throwdown so I can log a far away cache?

 

Now the COs must also take in consideration the distance from home in order to delete or not a bogus found it...

No. You are twisting both my point and that of NYPC. Further, no one in this thread has ever suggested that leaving a throwdown is OK, so don't do it wherever you live and don't do it here.

[+narcissa]

If you do you will not find much support around here.

 

Except that the whole thread is people supporting this. Don't I get extra latitude because I'm travelling? I am throwing the film can out the window in good faith!

[+sbell111]

If you had ever found (or looked for an didn't) a cache far away from home you might feel a little different. If you're 5000+ miles from home, and only have a few hours in the area, it's unreasonable to expect that a finder is going to be able to contact a CO and get a response before leaving the area.

 

So, maybe I am reading it wrong but are you saying that if you drove 5000+ miles to search for a cache and what you actually found was a throwdown you are entitled to keep the found... but if you only drove 5 miles there is no problem?

 

Com´on man!

You are reading it wrong. The distance issue was brought up, in my opinion, to counter the arguments that 1) log deletions are no big deal and 2) that cachers should, for some reason, be contacting cache owners from ground zero to verify that the log that is being signed is 'correct'.

Edited September 11, 2014 by sbell111

[+JPreto]

For now TPTB are generally accepting of many puritan ideas and allow the deletion of logs, while at the same time ecouraging a more liberal view of the find log be used. That is not to say TPTB support allowing any find log, and you are right to point out that cache owners are ask to delete logs that are bogus, counterfeit, off-topic, or otherwise inappropriate. However, I believe that intent is to not use the most literal/puritanical definition but to take a broad view of what is a find.

This is an attempt to satisfy the ones that are puritans and the ones that are sloppy COs and don´t do proper maintenance.

 

With this more players will play the game thus more income. Simple!

[+JPreto]

If you do you will not find much support around here.

 

Except that the whole thread is people supporting this. Don't I get extra latitude because I'm travelling? I am throwing the film can out the window in good faith!

Sorry, I am not!

[+sbell111]

Many people travel far and wide and may just have enough time to find a cache or two in each exotic location.

 

I geocache when I travel. I don't expect to claim finds on caches I didn't find, whether the cache is 5000km from or 5km from home. Writing my name on garbage near the GZ is not finding a geocache.

Writing your name on a logbook in a container found at GZ, however, is finding a geocache.

[+sbell111]

Many people travel far and wide and may just have enough time to find a cache or two in each exotic location.

 

I geocache when I travel. I don't expect to claim finds on caches I didn't find, whether the cache is 5000km from or 5km from home. Writing my name on garbage near the GZ is not finding a geocache.

 

Maybe I should just change this log into a FOUND IT! Right?

 

http://coord.info/GLDFKF51

Given that you did not find a container at the location and did not sign a log found in same, I'm not seeing how that DNF has anything to do with this conversation. That being said, if you had found a container with a logbook inside, it would have been reasonable for you to conclude that you had, indeed, found the cache.

Edited September 11, 2014 by sbell111

[+TriciaG]

If you do you will not find much support around here.

 

Except that the whole thread is people supporting this. Don't I get extra latitude because I'm travelling? I am throwing the film can out the window in good faith!

Are you serious? No, WE ARE NOT SUPPORTING THROWING DOWN A CACHE. Give me a break.

 

You cannot see the difference in logging what appears to be the original cache and throwing down?

Edited September 11, 2014 by TriciaG

[+narcissa]

That being said, if you had found a container with a logbook inside, it would have been reasonable for you to conclude that you had, indeed, found the cache.

 

While the mistake is somewhat understandable, it's still a mistake and not a find.

[+JPreto]

That being said, if you had found a container with a logbook inside, it would have been reasonable for you to conclude that you had, indeed, found the cache.

 

While the mistake is somewhat understandable, it's still a mistake and not a find.

 

Not the but a cache!

[cezanne]

If there is no clear sign that someone found a wrong container, I would not delete logs as cache owner and I would not expect other cache owners to delete such logs. I'm out for caching and not for a detective game.

 

Again, I completely respect that you would take a different approach. Not sure why, in a forum where people are hypersensitive about the legitimacy of other people's finds, everyone is in such a rage to tell me what I should do.

 

I did not tell you what you should do. I stated what I would do and what my expectations are in cases where it is not possible within a reasonable effort for the finder to realize that they might have found a wrong container. This is not only about throwdowns - such cases can also easily happen when a cache from another platform happens to be hidden very close to a gc.com cache and it also happened that people found unpublished caches (with several logs before the same happened to others before) or archived caches that never got removed.

 

I think that as long it does not become evident from the description that one found the wrong container, the finder behaved in an appropriate manner.

 

If I find a T=4* cache at the base of a tree or a D=4* cache in plain sight or the container size is wrong or something else is strange, well then I have a reason to doubt that what I found is the right container. But in cases where there is no such evidence, a find is a find for me.

 

In the case of my own caches the decision is easy for me anyway because there it is the accomplishment to arrive at the final location and not to find the container. I try to choose easy hideouts and provide hints and/or spoiler photos.

If finding the container is the real challenge, then typically the description will be such that one can realize to have found a wrong container.

 

Cezanne

[cezanne]

That being said, if you had found a container with a logbook inside, it would have been reasonable for you to conclude that you had, indeed, found the cache.

 

While the mistake is somewhat understandable, it's still a mistake and not a find.

 

I'd say that depends on the cache. If someone manages all stages of my caches and arrives the final location and then signs a wrong log sheet, I still have the proof they have been there and experienced what I wanted them to experience (unless they cheated before but that's not the issue discussed here as this can happen if they sign the right container too),

 

So, you could regard such a situation as mistake and I can still regard it as find for one of my caches.

 

For me cache is an abstract concept that comprises much more than a container. I agree that in the described case someone would not have found the container hidden by me, but I'd still regard them as finders of my cache (which by the way I also do if they failed to find an intermediary stage but managed to find the final container nevertheless). A find for a cache has a more general meaning for me than finding the container.

Cezanne

Edited September 11, 2014 by cezanne

[+GeoBain]

If you do you will not find much support around here.

 

Except that the whole thread is people supporting this. Don't I get extra latitude because I'm travelling? I am throwing the film can out the window in good faith!

 

Noone has supported the creation of throwdowns in this thread. But if you were to find one placed where the original should have been and it contains a proper logbook, then yes, people are saying if you logged a find then it should stand.

[+GeoBain]

That being said, if you had found a container with a logbook inside, it would have been reasonable for you to conclude that you had, indeed, found the cache.

 

While the mistake is somewhat understandable, it's still a mistake and not a find.

 

Not the but a cache!

 

And if a cache is located where the cache should be, then the fault is with the owner for not maintaining their cache. So if you want to pull out the guidelines to justify log deletion, don't forget the part that states that you are to maintain the physical location, not just the online, easy to maintain, listing of your cache.

 

If you are maintaining your cache in such a way that bogus caches should not be located alongside your cache, then I fully support your deletion of bogus find logs.

 

But if there are signatures dating back days or weeks in a throwdown cache, then the cache owner should not delete any logs other than that of the person who placed the throwdown. If you aren't rigidly maintaining your physical cache, you should not be rigidly maintaining the online logs.

[+cerberus1]

That being said, if you had found a container with a logbook inside, it would have been reasonable for you to conclude that you had, indeed, found the cache.

 

While the mistake is somewhat understandable, it's still a mistake and not a find.

 

Not the but a cache!

 

And if a cache is located where the cache should be, then the fault is with the owner for not maintaining their cache. So if you want to pull out the guidelines to justify log deletion, don't forget the part that states that you are to maintain the physical location, not just the online, easy to maintain, listing of your cache.

 

If you are maintaining your cache in such a way that bogus caches should not be located alongside your cache, then I fully support your deletion of bogus find logs.

 

But if there are signatures dating back days or weeks in a throwdown cache, then the cache owner should not delete any logs other than that of the person who placed the throwdown. If you aren't rigidly maintaining your physical cache, you should not be rigidly maintaining the online logs.

+1

[4wheelin_fool]

If you do you will not find much support around here.

 

Except that the whole thread is people supporting this. Don't I get extra latitude because I'm travelling? I am throwing the film can out the window in good faith!

 

Noone has supported the creation of throwdowns in this thread. But if you were to find one placed where the original should have been and it contains a proper logbook, then yes, people are saying if you logged a find then it should stand.

 

That action does support it in a passive aggressive manner. Such as if you noticed a crime being committed and looked the other way without doing anything such as calling 911. That's exactly what the perp is counting on. Historically people will always test boundaries and learn the limits of tolerance which is how these things happen. Nobody is going to leave any throwdowns if they believe that the CO is going to embark on a log deletion spree and email all of the faux finders about the identity of who left the throwdown.

[+JPreto]

That action does support it in a passive aggressive manner. Such as if you noticed a crime being committed and looked the other way without doing anything such as calling 911. That's exactly what the perp is counting on. Historically people will always test boundaries and learn the limits of tolerance which is how these things happen. Nobody is going to leave any throwdowns if they believe that the CO is going to embark on a log deletion spree and email all of the faux finders about the identity of who left the throwdown.

Exactly what I said before... Looking to the other side instead of dealing with the problem!

[+MountainWoods]

....

 

I can vouch for something like this not going over well. Something similar happened to me, and i'm thinking around 10 others, about a year ago. It was a multi cache where we found the first stage and then the final,,, or so we thought. We signed a log (other names were already on it) that we found inside the cache. Little did we know that this was a throwdown log. The CO had originally placed a thumbdrive inside this 2nd container that had to be accessed in order to get final coordinates but again, we had no idea this was how the cache was set up.

 

Suffice it to say, we all get deletion notices about a year later when the CO checks and finds the throwdown log book. I normally wouldn't give a hoot and just go on my merry way but doing it a year later messed up my milestones statistics. I contacted him and explained and he offered to let me relog the cache. I took him up on it since i did originally sign the log in good faith. This little incident definitely caused a stir in the local geocaching community!

 

Again, i would not delete all of the find logs in the throwdown cache but i wouldn't have any problem deleting the throwdowner's.

Anyone who puts a jump drive into a container for a multi should expect that they might run into trouble from idiots who do throw-downs; 'cause whilst the one GCer is running home with the jump drive to plug it into their computer to get the next set of coordinates (before returning it back into the container), someone else is likely to come along while the jump drive is missing. Unfortunately, the later-comer may be one of the throw-down types.

 

Moral of the story is not to put something in your multi that requires folks to take it away for a length of time just to get to the next stage!

[+GeoBain]

If you do you will not find much support around here.

 

Except that the whole thread is people supporting this. Don't I get extra latitude because I'm travelling? I am throwing the film can out the window in good faith!

 

Noone has supported the creation of throwdowns in this thread. But if you were to find one placed where the original should have been and it contains a proper logbook, then yes, people are saying if you logged a find then it should stand.

 

That action does support it in a passive aggressive manner. Such as if you noticed a crime being committed and looked the other way without doing anything such as calling 911. That's exactly what the perp is counting on. Historically people will always test boundaries and learn the limits of tolerance which is how these things happen. Nobody is going to leave any throwdowns if they believe that the CO is going to embark on a log deletion spree and email all of the faux finders about the identity of who left the throwdown.

 

I disagree.

 

Not deleting the thower's log could be considered as supporting it. But choosing not to delete unsuspecting loggers' finds is not condoning the practice of throwdowns.

 

Again, I'd like to see tptb take some action against those that perpetually leave throwdowns in order to increase their numbers. I think hiding their stats from public view would be a nice way of curbing this practice. Stats is what fuels a lot of this so removal of stats would stop a lot of it.

 

*** Edit to add that people who toss throwdowns are not concerned about others. People who leave throwdowns already know they are gambling on whether or not a CO cares about their log or not. So removing everyone else's logs is not going to curb the practice.

Edited September 11, 2014 by GeoBain

[cezanne]

That action does support it in a passive aggressive manner. Such as if you noticed a crime being committed and looked the other way without doing anything such as calling 911. That's exactly what the perp is counting on. Historically people will always test boundaries and learn the limits of tolerance which is how these things happen. Nobody is going to leave any throwdowns if they believe that the CO is going to embark on a log deletion spree and email all of the faux finders about the identity of who left the throwdown.

Exactly what I said before... Looking to the other side instead of dealing with the problem!

 

It somehow starts to get ridiculous. I strictly object against this comparison with committing a crime.

It can happen very easily that a wrong container gets logged without the cache owner or the finder doing anything wrong. It can take a long time until it becomes evident that there is more than container and as I said before, there are plenty of reasons for multiple containers apart from throwdowns.

 

The thread here is not about how to react to a found it log by someone who placed a throwdown and it is not about that cache owners should visit their caches once they realize that there is more than one container around.

 

Cezanne

[+sbell111]

If you do you will not find much support around here.

 

Except that the whole thread is people supporting this. Don't I get extra latitude because I'm travelling? I am throwing the film can out the window in good faith!

 

Noone has supported the creation of throwdowns in this thread. But if you were to find one placed where the original should have been and it contains a proper logbook, then yes, people are saying if you logged a find then it should stand.

 

That action does support it in a passive aggressive manner. Such as if you noticed a crime being committed and looked the other way without doing anything such as calling 911. That's exactly what the perp is counting on. Historically people will always test boundaries and learn the limits of tolerance which is how these things happen. Nobody is going to leave any throwdowns if they believe that the CO is going to embark on a log deletion spree and email all of the faux finders about the identity of who left the throwdown.

That analogy seems broken to me.

 

Would you arrest all of the people who ate in the diner across the streeet from a burglary because they could have seen the burglary happen, even though none of them actually did?

 

If not, then why delete the finds of people who didn't even know that a throwdown happened?

Edited September 11, 2014 by sbell111

[+DanOCan]

Not all cachers who stick to traditionals are bad, but most bad cachers stick to traditionals.

While I disagree with your stance in this particular thread, the above statement rings 100% true to me.

[4wheelin_fool]

If you do you will not find much support around here.

 

Except that the whole thread is people supporting this. Don't I get extra latitude because I'm travelling? I am throwing the film can out the window in good faith!

 

Noone has supported the creation of throwdowns in this thread. But if you were to find one placed where the original should have been and it contains a proper logbook, then yes, people are saying if you logged a find then it should stand.

 

That action does support it in a passive aggressive manner. Such as if you noticed a crime being committed and looked the other way without doing anything such as calling 911. That's exactly what the perp is counting on. Historically people will always test boundaries and learn the limits of tolerance which is how these things happen. Nobody is going to leave any throwdowns if they believe that the CO is going to embark on a log deletion spree and email all of the faux finders about the identity of who left the throwdown.

That analogy seems broken to me.

 

Would you arrest all of the people who ate in the diner across the streeet from a burglary because they could have seen the burglary happen, even though none of them actually did?

 

If not, then why delete the finds of people who didn't even know that a throwdown happened?

 

This communicates to them that a throwdown occurred, and that their involvement has been terminated, whether they are aware of it or not. People who do not call 911 if they notice a crime are very rarely arrested anyhow. It might seem like a case of punishing the wrong people, but more clearly it is just drawing the limits of tolerance a little tighter. It would be punishment if they had signed the correct logsheet, rather its not punishing anyone, but just being correct, perhaps in an anal retentive manner, but still correct. How can it be punishment if the online log displayed incorrect information under false pretenses? Tolerating this is only encouraging more.

[+DanOCan]

If you do you will not find much support around here.

Except that the whole thread is people supporting this. Don't I get extra latitude because I'm travelling? I am throwing the film can out the window in good faith!

Nope. Not seeing anyone here who is supporting you throwing down a cache. People are, however, supporting the people who come along behind you and are looking for a micro cache and find the film canister you threw out the window at ground zero and sign that log believing they found the original cache.

[+DanOCan]

Maybe all this angst would go away if we replaced the logbook with something more unique and difficult to duplicate like a QR code.

[+narcissa]

 

Would you arrest all of the people who ate in the diner across the streeet from a burglary because they could have seen the burglary happen, even though none of them actually did?

 

If not, then why delete the finds of people who didn't even know that a throwdown happened?

 

It's pure hyperbole to equate deleting a geocache log with arresting innocent people.

 

If anything, it's more like a small banking error. If you spent $10 that was put into your account by accident, the bank would make you pay it back. They wouldn't arrest you, or take away your account, or put your face on a wanted poster. They would just subtract the $10 from your account to correct the error.

 

There would only be a problem if you decided that, gosh darn it, you're entitled to that $10.

 

Now maybe some banks would just decide to extend the courtesy of letting you have the $10, but others would not.

[+tozainamboku]

There is no reason for knickers to get twisted because someone finds the wrong container and logs a find. If you are a cache owner who finds out that there was a unwanted throwdown on your cache, you are responsible for dealing with it - perhaps by removing the throwdown. You can even delete the log of the person leaving the throwdown. Nobody is disputing this.

 

What bothers me about puritans is that they are more concerned with find logs and find counts then the people who they accuse of doing things just to inflate their find count. Someone may log a find on the throwdown container because to the best of their knowledge they found the cache. The puritans are arguing that when they eventually do get around to picking up the throwdown that they will delete the logs of people who signed that log instead of signing the log in the "real" cache. Of course this is not a punishment because the online find is not a WIGAS point but rather the TRUTH according to the gospel of narcissa and JPreto, and if you didn't find the "real" cache, then you don't get to log a find online.

 

I happen to think the online log is just an online log. I don't believe there is a prize for having more of them. I also don't expect that they will all be the TRUTH accoring to someone's arbirtrary definition. They reflect the belief of the person entering the log, along with some control by the cache owner to monitor for quality control. If the cache owner is a puritan there is a possibility for the owner to delete logs they don't like, but that doesn't make deleting the logs the right thing to do.

 

I don't like it when puritans accuse someone who doesn't delete logs of being like someone who witnesses a crime and doesn't call 911. These was no crime commited. IMO, even leaving a throwdown isn't a crime. But certainly someone logging a find because they believe that what they found was the cache is not a crime. This all reminds me too much of why, years ago, I started using the term puritan to describe these cache owners. "Yea, verily those women I saw go into the woods must be witches. Burn them." Maybe they were just having fun geocaching?

Edited September 11, 2014 by tozainamboku

[+narcissa]

I don't like it when puritans accuse someone who doesn't delete logs of being like someone who witnesses a crime and doesn't call 911.

 

Nobody is doing that.

[+JPreto]

*** Edit to add that people who toss throwdowns are not concerned about others. People who leave throwdowns already know they are gambling on whether or not a CO cares about their log or not.

I really think that it would show others that throwdowns are bad. Even tho most geocachers would feel bad with the CO that deleted the logs, actually they should feel bad with the "fellow geocacher" that placed the throwdown. If that wouldn´t be the case they would probably had found the correct container and log a correct found it log.

 

So removing everyone else's logs is not going to curb the practice.

So... I do really think that if more people deleted all logs that where not done in the actual geocache but in the throwdown the global attitude towards a throwdown might change. The way things are going not only it will not change as the amount of throwdowns will grow!

[+JPreto]

Maybe all this angst would go away if we replaced the logbook with something more unique and difficult to duplicate like a QR code.

 

My idea posted in another thread was to singly identify each cache with something unique that nothing else would be confused.

 

Just launching an idea: "Passive RFID identifiers" If you place a very small antenna in the passive RFID and placed it inside the geocache people would have to tag the container and it should be the correct one, otherwise it wouldn´t mark.

 

Passive RFIDs are cheap... i´ll do some tests on this issue!

[+JPreto]

I don't like it when puritans accuse someone who doesn't delete logs of being like someone who witnesses a crime and doesn't call 911.

 

Nobody is doing that.

 

What I actually said was: "most geocachers prefer to turn the head to the problem instead of solving it".

 

For me solving it is trying to stop people from placing throwdowns that most of us agree that are bad for the game.

 

So, if you REALLY want to make people less prone to place a throwdown tell me another way to do it that I am all into it! until then I feel that the best solution is to delete all logs on the throwdown logbook!

[+Mudfrog]

I guess i am a "puritan" in that i think a person needs to find the correct cache and sign the correct log. I try to keep a pretty good eye on my caches and don't have any problem deleting bogus logs. But at the same time, i'm not so anal that i'd delete the logs of unsuspecting cachers because somebody threw their spew ahead of them.

 

For me personally, i'd appreciate it if a CO hollared at me to let me know that i signed a throwdown. I'd change my find to a DNF and then eventually try to go back and search for the cache again.

[+sbell111]

If you do you will not find much support around here.

 

Except that the whole thread is people supporting this. Don't I get extra latitude because I'm travelling? I am throwing the film can out the window in good faith!

 

Noone has supported the creation of throwdowns in this thread. But if you were to find one placed where the original should have been and it contains a proper logbook, then yes, people are saying if you logged a find then it should stand.

 

That action does support it in a passive aggressive manner. Such as if you noticed a crime being committed and looked the other way without doing anything such as calling 911. That's exactly what the perp is counting on. Historically people will always test boundaries and learn the limits of tolerance which is how these things happen. Nobody is going to leave any throwdowns if they believe that the CO is going to embark on a log deletion spree and email all of the faux finders about the identity of who left the throwdown.

That analogy seems broken to me.

 

Would you arrest all of the people who ate in the diner across the streeet from a burglary because they could have seen the burglary happen, even though none of them actually did?

 

If not, then why delete the finds of people who didn't even know that a throwdown happened?

 

This communicates to them that a throwdown occurred, and that their involvement has been terminated, whether they are aware of it or not. People who do not call 911 if they notice a crime are very rarely arrested anyhow. It might seem like a case of punishing the wrong people, but more clearly it is just drawing the limits of tolerance a little tighter. It would be punishment if they had signed the correct logsheet, rather its not punishing anyone, but just being correct, perhaps in an anal retentive manner, but still correct. How can it be punishment if the online log displayed incorrect information under false pretenses? Tolerating this is only encouraging more.

I bolded the bit where you ran far from the track. You see, 'false pretenses' suggests that there was some attempt by these cachers to deceive the cache owner. This couldn't be further from the truth. These people simply looked for a cache, found a cache, and logged their find online. If anything, the cache owner acted under false pretenses as he held up a cache as having no maintenance issues when it did and then penalized cachers for acting in good faith.

Edited September 11, 2014 by sbell111

[+sbell111]

 

Would you arrest all of the people who ate in the diner across the streeet from a burglary because they could have seen the burglary happen, even though none of them actually did?

 

If not, then why delete the finds of people who didn't even know that a throwdown happened?

 

It's pure hyperbole to equate deleting a geocache log with arresting innocent people.

Of course it is, but I was trying to work within 4wf's analogy. Edited September 11, 2014 by sbell111

[+JPreto]

 

Would you arrest all of the people who ate in the diner across the streeet from a burglary because they could have seen the burglary happen, even though none of them actually did?

 

If not, then why delete the finds of people who didn't even know that a throwdown happened?

 

It's pure hyperbole to equate deleting a geocache log with arresting innocent people.

Of course it is, but I was trying to work within 4wf's analogy.

You cant´see a patern arysing from 4WF´s comments? You can clearly see my behaviour as "puritan" (quoting Toz) but you can´t see 4WF´s teasing comments...

[+sbell111]

*** Edit to add that people who toss throwdowns are not concerned about others. People who leave throwdowns already know they are gambling on whether or not a CO cares about their log or not.

I really think that it would show others that throwdowns are bad. Even tho most geocachers would feel bad with the CO that deleted the logs, actually they should feel bad with the "fellow geocacher" that placed the throwdown. If that wouldn´t be the case they would probably had found the correct container and log a correct found it log.

 

So removing everyone else's logs is not going to curb the practice.

So... I do really think that if more people deleted all logs that where not done in the actual geocache but in the throwdown the global attitude towards a throwdown might change. The way things are going not only it will not change as the amount of throwdowns will grow!

My thinking is that the only real change is that the cache owner might show up in the forums shortly whining about how all of his caches seem to be coming up missing.

Edited September 11, 2014 by sbell111

[+sbell111]

I don't like it when puritans accuse someone who doesn't delete logs of being like someone who witnesses a crime and doesn't call 911.

 

Nobody is doing that.

 

What I actually said was: "most geocachers prefer to turn the head to the problem instead of solving it".

 

For me solving it is trying to stop people from placing throwdowns that most of us agree that are bad for the game.

 

So, if you REALLY want to make people less prone to place a throwdown tell me another way to do it that I am all into it! until then I feel that the best solution is to delete all logs on the throwdown logbook!

One way would be the way recommended by tptb and discussed throughout this thread. Delete the log of the person who dropped the throwdown.

[+sbell111]

 

Would you arrest all of the people who ate in the diner across the streeet from a burglary because they could have seen the burglary happen, even though none of them actually did?

 

If not, then why delete the finds of people who didn't even know that a throwdown happened?

 

It's pure hyperbole to equate deleting a geocache log with arresting innocent people.

Of course it is, but I was trying to work within 4wf's analogy.

You cant´see a patern arysing from 4WF´s comments? You can clearly see my behaviour as "puritan" (quoting Toz) but you can´t see 4WF´s teasing comments...

It's not my job to keep you two from picking on each other. I have my own kids.

[+GeoBain]

*** Edit to add that people who toss throwdowns are not concerned about others. People who leave throwdowns already know they are gambling on whether or not a CO cares about their log or not.

I really think that it would show others that throwdowns are bad. Even tho most geocachers would feel bad with the CO that deleted the logs, actually they should feel bad with the "fellow geocacher" that placed the throwdown. If that wouldn´t be the case they would probably had found the correct container and log a correct found it log.

 

You think they're going to band together and go after the person who placed the TD? They have no way of getting anywhere with him or her. But they can harrass you and they can harrass Groundspeak. And Groundspeak isn't going to be dealing with the TD tosser. They will be dealing with you.

 

So, in essence, you are not really deterring throwdowns but you are causing yourself a lot of grief.

 

But some people enjoy that and it is their right so I have no problem with that.

 

I tend to think that people like you and Narcissa are not going to be deleting a lot of incorrect logs anyway. You seem like you are on top of your caches.

 

The people that allow TDs to remain for weeks are probably not too concerned with micro managing the online logs either. So in reality, it's best to just agree that you can manage your caches however you want.

[4wheelin_fool]

I don't like it when puritans accuse someone who doesn't delete logs of being like someone who witnesses a crime and doesn't call 911.

 

Nobody is doing that.

 

I did.

Littering is a crime whether TOZ believes it or not.

[4wheelin_fool]

 

Would you arrest all of the people who ate in the diner across the streeet from a burglary because they could have seen the burglary happen, even though none of them actually did?

 

If not, then why delete the finds of people who didn't even know that a throwdown happened?

 

It's pure hyperbole to equate deleting a geocache log with arresting innocent people.

Of course it is, but I was trying to work within 4wf's analogy.

You cant´see a patern arysing from 4WF´s comments? You can clearly see my behaviour as "puritan" (quoting Toz) but you can´t see 4WF´s teasing comments...

 

There's no teasing here. You are OCD serious, while I am trying to keep it light.

[+chasclifton]

"IMO, it's not worth the hard feeling you would get if you were to take the hard line and delete the improper logs.

They actually aren't false find logs. They would have no way to know they hadn't found the correct container, so they logged finds in good faith."

 

Let me play devil's advocate here, based on recent experience.

 

I prepare, camouflage, and hide a container.

 

A bunch of people find it. Some compliment the hide on being tricky or admit that they needed two tries.

 

Then Lazy Cacher comes along, cannot find it, and instead of logging Did Not Find, he sets a 35mm film canister on a fence post about six yards away.

 

A bunch more people come along and find that throw-down -- even though the terrain is more difficult than at the real cache. They ignored the hint. They ignored the 2.5 Difficulty rating. They just wanted the easy grab.

 

OK, so they found something. If they can find a website where they can log "something," more power to them. But they did not find the cache that I hid.

 

Yet they should get credit for finding what they did not find? GC must subscribe to the "Every dog gets a ribbon" school of thought.

[+TriciaG]

"IMO, it's not worth the hard feeling you would get if you were to take the hard line and delete the improper logs.

They actually aren't false find logs. They would have no way to know they hadn't found the correct container, so they logged finds in good faith."

 

Let me play devil's advocate here, based on recent experience.

 

I prepare, camouflage, and hide a container.

 

A bunch of people find it. Some compliment the hide on being tricky or admit that they needed two tries.

 

Then Lazy Cacher comes along, cannot find it, and instead of logging Did Not Find, he sets a 35mm film canister on a fence post about six yards away.

 

A bunch more people come along and find that throw-down -- even though the terrain is more difficult than at the real cache. They ignored the hint. They ignored the 2.5 Difficulty rating. They just wanted the easy grab.

 

OK, so they found something. If they can find a website where they can log "something," more power to them. But they did not find the cache that I hid.

 

Yet they should get credit for finding what they did not find? GC must subscribe to the "Every dog gets a ribbon" school of thought.

 

What if there is no hint, the cache size is the same, and the difficulty is subjective?

[+tozainamboku]

Yet they should get credit for finding what they did not find? GC must subscribe to the "Every dog gets a ribbon" school of thought.

I don't believe that Groundspeak views it as ribbon or even a WIGAS point.

 

People post online found logs because they believe that what they found was the cache. While ideally, they shouldn't care if their find is deketed, since it's not a point and what they found wasn't the cache, some people will get very upset that a cache owner is getting all technical about a log that is simply a statement of the finders belief. They found something, they marked it as found, and now the cache owner is using a different definition of "find" to change this. I think the problem is that Groundspeak has told cache owners to delete logs that appear bogus and cache owners want to interpret bogus to mean "does not meet their definition".

 

While there are many cache owners who personally would not want to find a throwdown if the original is really still there, most will accept that a fair number of cachers go by the definition of "I found what I believed to be the cache, I signed the log, so it's a find".

 

Those who are convinced that they have the one true definition of a find are no different that the cacher who is convinced that the cache is missing and a replacement cache is better than having no cache at all to find. If someone is certain, it is pretty much impossible to change their mind.

[+chasclifton]

Those who are convinced that they have the one true definition of a find are no different that the cacher who is convinced that the cache is missing and a replacement cache is better than having no cache at all to find. If someone is certain, it is pretty much impossible to change their mind.

 

If "the cache I put out there -- and which is still out there -- is the real cache" is "a true definition," then yes.

 

I am not talking about a replacement cache, I am talking about an additional cache that spoofs the real one, placed by someone who simply could not find the real one.

[4wheelin_fool]

Well, there is invariably two groups of annoyed people here. Those that throw a tantrum over a deleted log on an abandoned gift that someone else left, and those that insist that people post their DNFs instead of leaving garbage behind. The two sides are not equal, as the cache owner visited the spot, left a geocache, and expected people to find it, not to expect entitlement. Personally I wouldn't delete any logs, or get the least bit upset at a throwdown, but can sympathize with those that do.

[+sbell111]

Well, there is invariably two groups of annoyed people here. Those that throw a tantrum over a deleted log on an abandoned gift that someone else left, and those that insist that people post their DNFs instead of leaving garbage behind. The two sides are not equal, as the cache owner visited the spot, left a geocache, and expected people to find it, not to expect entitlement. Personally I wouldn't delete any logs, or get the least bit upset at a throwdown, but can sympathize with those that do.

I think that it's important to note that those two groups of people do not exist as two sides of the same coin. Presumably, the overwhelming majority of these hypothetical people who signed the throwdown log believed that they were signing the one true logbook. These people were not expressing their support for throwdowns by logging their find. They were merely geocaching. As such, they can both be dissatisfied if their log is deleted AND be of the belief that throwdowns are 'bad'.

[4wheelin_fool]

Well, there is invariably two groups of annoyed people here. Those that throw a tantrum over a deleted log on an abandoned gift that someone else left, and those that insist that people post their DNFs instead of leaving garbage behind. The two sides are not equal, as the cache owner visited the spot, left a geocache, and expected people to find it, not to expect entitlement. Personally I wouldn't delete any logs, or get the least bit upset at a throwdown, but can sympathize with those that do.

I think that it's important to note that those two groups of people do not exist as two sides of the same coin. Presumably, the overwhelming majority of these hypothetical people who signed the throwdown log believed that they were signing the one true logbook. These people were not expressing their support for throwdowns by logging their find. They were merely geocaching. As such, they can both be dissatisfied if their log is deleted AND be of the belief that throwdowns are 'bad'.

 

True, but if they didn't find the cache, it's simply a DNF and nothing to cry over. An online page full of false find logs is misleading, especially if the throwdown needed maintenance while the actual cache was fine.

[+tozainamboku]

Well, there is invariably two groups of annoyed people here. Those that throw a tantrum over a deleted log on an abandoned gift that someone else left, and those that insist that people post their DNFs instead of leaving garbage behind. The two sides are not equal, as the cache owner visited the spot, left a geocache, and expected people to find it, not to expect entitlement. Personally I wouldn't delete any logs, or get the least bit upset at a throwdown, but can sympathize with those that do.

I think that it's important to note that those two groups of people do not exist as two sides of the same coin. Presumably, the overwhelming majority of these hypothetical people who signed the throwdown log believed that they were signing the one true logbook. These people were not expressing their support for throwdowns by logging their find. They were merely geocaching. As such, they can both be dissatisfied if their log is deleted AND be of the belief that throwdowns are 'bad'.

 

True, but if they didn't find the cache, it's simply a DNF and nothing to cry over. An online page full of false find logs is misleading, especially if the throwdown needed maintenance while the actual cache was fine.

I agree that there are two groups of annoyed people here. Those who see the Found It and DNF logs as both equally valid outcomes of a cache hunt and wish that people use the one appropriate to this group's definition of a find; and those who see a DNF log as somewhat of a negative and wish to avoid DNFs that are due to the cache being missing - either by leaving a throwdow or by accepting finding a throwdown left by someone else is a find.

 

If you don't want to be constantly annoyed I suggest a third group: those who see the online logs as irrelevant except in certain rare instances where a false log might cause them to make a decision that ends up with them feeling they have wasted time or money. This group might not even bother logging their own finds, and with those rare exceptions they don't care what logs others use.