Asking group cachers to sign log with individual trailnames

[cezanne]

 

This discussion really shouldn't be about whether deleting logs is right or wrong, but perhaps better served as positive ways to provide an ongoing and accurate log history, both as finders and as owners which benefit the community. (and this includes the idea of group caching, which also is not wrong in and of itself, but can most certainly be a source of invalid logs)

 

A major part of this discussion is about whether it is ok if one puts a request of the type "Please ......" in the cache description without any mentioning of log deletions and also without taking them into consideration. To my surprise many here do not find this request acceptable and that's what I still cannot understand.

 

Your idea of group caching seems to differ from mine as you state that it is not wrong in itself - the type of group caching some group members are at home or somewhere else and far from the cache is wrong in my opinion. For a virtual where the answer can be found online without a visit to the cache location, there is at least the argument that some people believe that a virtual cache can be solved in a virtual manner. There is however no excuse at all in my opinion for a find log without having been at least in the area of the final (ignore for the moment special cases like partner caches etc where the owner might have a different concept than what's traditionally the case).

Edited March 14, 2016 by cezanne

[+Harry Dolphin]

I dunno. When I started geocaching, the guidelines were: Find cache. Sign log. Log find on-line. Get smiley.

Seems easy.

Todays guidelines are a bit different:

Register for a free Basic Membership.

Visit the "Hide & Seek a Cache" page.

Enter your postal code and click "search."

Choose any geocache from the list and click on its name.

Enter the coordinates of the geocache into your GPS Device.

Use your GPS device to assist you in finding the hidden geocache.

Sign the logbook and return the geocache to its original location.

Share your geocaching stories and photos online.

 

But: Sign the logbook is still listed.

[+thebruce0]

When I wrote "were not at the cache" I did not refer to people who do not do the climb or did not do the dive for a cache but who were many miles from the cache location when the cache got logged.

 

That's not about hardlining one's own definitions of a find. It's about the minimum amount of honesty that I expect to be present in whatever activity.

Yep, unfortunately, by the rules, if their name is in the logsheet, and if whoever they calim to be with "confirms" they were there, then there's nothing we can do. In this case, IMO, if the actual find log is valid, I won't care about the couch log. But if it's just a couch log and it's invalid, then it's misinformation that affects finders and the owner. If it can't be confirmed as invalid, then it's entirely a potentially problematic cacher who may be perpetuating bad practices, and will likely be dealt with if their logging habits do begin to negatively affect others' experiences.

 

Because it's not worth it. Generally speaking, people understand basically what is enjoyable about geocaching. So yes we can theorize about what people can do to get around the guidelines and "cheat themselves", but how many actually do this, and how does that really affect us individually?

Apparently it's worth for an non-ignorable number of cachers - they end up with the numbers, positions in ranking lists, badges, challenge caches etc they want to end up with.

If the finds are valid, then no they don't affect me.

If the finds are invalid, then yes it may directly affect me by giving me wrong information.

The former can make you upset because people don't think like you. The latter can affect your enjoyment in a manner beyond your control.

It's important to distinguish between these two contexts, as it'll save you from a lot of needless insanity in the future

 

The way it affects me is that I do not feel comfortable to have to deal with so much open dishonesty.

Then don't, just deal with what's verifiably false within the realm of the responsibilities you've bene granted as a cache owner and expected of you as a cache finder

 

A major part of this discussion is about whether it is ok if one puts a request of the type "Please ......" in the cache description without any mentioning of log deletions and also without taking them into consideration. To my surprise many here do not find this request acceptable and that's what I still cannot understand.

I didn't read any part of the discussion saying that it's wrong to ask people to do so, but rather much more controversy over whether asking gave the owner the legitimate right to delete logs that don't adhere to the request.

I don't believe the CO can require that request in order to post a valid claim. It would be an ALR as it alters the outlined requirements for a Found It log.

 

Your idea of group caching seems to differ from mine as you state that it is not wrong in itself - the type of group caching some group members are at home or somewhere else and far from the cache is wrong in my opinion.

Nope, never said that was okay. BUT, if it can't be falsified, then it is, by the rules, allowable. Sucks, but there's no easier verifiable way around it.

There's a different between ethically "right", and allowable by the letter of the law. Couch logging may be allowable if one employs a loophole to claim it (because that presumes it can't be falsified, so it's on the honour system), but that does not mean I think it's "right".

[+WarNinjas]

There is however no excuse at all in my opinion for a find log without having been at least in the area of the final

 

I don't think or at least I hope no one is arguing this point. That is a completely legit concern. I think it is more about deleting logs with a group name when everyone was actually there. If I read the request I would definitely sign it with our name. The main time I might not read the request would be when I was out caching with a group. When group caching I will often be talking with someone when otherwise I would be reading the cache page as I walked to the next one. I might just pop up the coords and start looking. Maybe look at the hint but not read the whole thing.

 

I could even agree with a rule change that everyone has to always sign every log with there caching name but until that is in place I can't see deleting logs from those who didn't sign it in that way. If you have any reason to believe they were not there then I can see it but if the only reason is they signed as a group at this time I can't see it.

 

I find 95% of caches alone or with my daughter. So the rare group caching days are in most part getting out with others I only know from logs and there hides. It is fun to get to know them and on those days often it can be as much about hanging out with others enjoying this game we all play then actually spotting that one hide. I can do that the next day by myself. I have already spotted thousands by myself. If the hide turns out to be very special I will be asking questions and checking out how it works.

[+Clarkbowman]

I think that's a silly request. I would avoid getting into a log deletion debate by simply complying with it. I would be sure that each member of the large group signed the log in large, legible letters -- with no username abbreviations -- so that there could be no question about which individual accounts found that particular nano. Normally I'd log a nano with "Lep," but if I were with my daughter we would log "The Leprechauns" and "Little Leprechaun," very clearly.

 

Then I would log "Needs Maintenance" - "Logsheet Full!"

 

Honestly, if it was a generic traditional cache, chances are I wouldn't read the description unless I was having trouble finding it.

 

Generally, it's an exercise in futility to ask cachers to go above and beyond what is outlined in the guidelines.

How many of you actually read every cache page of every cache you load on your GPS. I tend to load 100's up at a time when Im going somewhere so that I have plenty to chose from. I don't know about any ones else's unit, but mine does not give me any of the description of the cache. So if you where to delete my log, we would have issues. Last I read, there is no rule saying that you can't log as a group. So if there is not anyone thinking they can just delete a log because they do not like groups hunting their cache needs to get over them selves. Even if some one in a group did not actually touch your cache, did that really hurt you or make you lose several nights sleep over it? If so you need to go have a drink and chill. The post I quoted I agree with

Edited March 15, 2016 by Clarkbowman

[cezanne]

There is however no excuse at all in my opinion for a find log without having been at least in the area of the final

 

I don't think or at least I hope no one is arguing this point.

 

Unfortunately, that's not true at all. The argument that comes in debates is that it only counts that the log book is signed and in this sort of argument coming from people who have not been in the cache area, I wish that they at least had to list all those who are going to log a find. It is a bit more work for them and keeps others from later deciding that they have been part of the team.

 

For example, try to tell some of these cachers that armchair logging of virtuals around the world is not what virtuals are about, and you will get a very nasty reply to mind your own business.

 

Try to ask them not to provide lists of trackable codes in event logs, and you will often end with up with nasty replies too.

 

I think it is more about deleting logs with a group name when everyone was actually there.

 

Actually, the request that cachers are asked to sign with their individual trail names is not about deleting logs at all, not even in the case when not everyone has been there.

 

It somehow makes me sad that apparently more cachers have an issue with a simple request than with the habits of those who abuse the fuzzy signing guideline. narcissa and fizzymagic, for example, stated that the mere presence of a request of the type "please sign the log individually" makes them having a bad opinion about the cache owner. If the cache owner not even is allowed to mention a request in a cache description, what actually is the cache owner allowed? Just to invest work and time to please others?

 

I could even agree with a rule change that everyone has to always sign every log with there caching name but until that is in place I can't see deleting logs from those who didn't sign it in that way. If you have any reason to believe they were not there then I can see it but if the only reason is they signed as a group at this time I can't see it.

 

The incident when two local cache owners and two group cachers asked GS about log deletions involved a scenario where it was evident from several indepedent evidence that not all loggers have been at all caches.

 

It is fun to get to know them and on those days often it can be as much about hanging out with others enjoying this game we all play then actually spotting that one hide. I can do that the next day by myself. I have already spotted thousands by myself.

 

I'm not one of those cachers who feels the need to actually spot every cache by myself. While I always want to be able to retrieve it myself, that's just my personal approach. All what I write in this thread is not about such situations - it's only about cachers which abuse the system and are supported and backed up my Groundspeak.

[cezanne]

When I wrote "were not at the cache" I did not refer to people who do not do the climb or did not do the dive for a cache but who were many miles from the cache location when the cache got logged.

 

That's not about hardlining one's own definitions of a find. It's about the minimum amount of honesty that I expect to be present in whatever activity.

Yep, unfortunately, by the rules, if their name is in the logsheet, and if whoever they calim to be with "confirms" they were there, then there's nothing we can do.

 

This is what many local cache owners thought up to the point when GS reacted as I have cited in this thread. They thought that in the case such a group does not sign with the names of the members, then they have a chance to question the found it logs.

Noone has believed that this could be done if the names are in the log sheet.

 

If it can't be confirmed as invalid, then it's entirely a potentially problematic cacher who may be perpetuating bad practices, and will likely be dealt with if their logging habits do begin to negatively affect others' experiences.

 

The group caching I referred to negatively affects others' experiences as it leads to cache archivals, planned caches that do not get hidden, an unfriendly atmosphere in the community etc

 

If the finds are valid, then no they don't affect me.

 

Not you because what's important to you is something which is not important to others like me and vice versa.

 

Of course it affects me if armchair logging takes place - I feel also heavily affected by those armchair loggers of virtuals due to the perception it creates about the integrity of cachers from certain countries. I will never visit these virtuals and the armchair logs do not give me wrong information as I can recognize them as armchair logs anyway, but so can many others and the same is true for physical caches.

 

Actually honesty and integrity ccount more for me than whether a log book is accurate.

 

The way it affects me is that I do not feel comfortable to have to deal with so much open dishonesty.

Then don't, just deal with what's verifiably false within the realm of the responsibilities you've bene granted as a cache owner and expected of you as a cache finder

 

The dishonesty and the perception what an insincere community this is cannot be avoided. That's not a question of being a cache owner and how to act as a cache finder.

 

I didn't read any part of the discussion saying that it's wrong to ask people to do so, but rather much more controversy over whether asking gave the owner the legitimate right to delete logs that don't adhere to the request.

 

fizzymagic, narcissa, keystone and others complained about the request (which does not mention log deletions) and not about log deletions.

 

There's a different between ethically "right", and allowable by the letter of the law. Couch logging may be allowable if one employs a loophole to claim it (because that presumes it can't be falsified, so it's on the honour system), but that does not mean I think it's "right".

 

Actually, it is very easily falsifiable in most cases that I come across in my area (meaning that the involved cachers come from my province, not necessarily that the caches are located there). Of course someone who logs e.g. local caches on the days around the Block party (sometimes even on the day of the party) and then logs the block party on the day it took place in the US with the same text found some logs below, is not credible (no, it's not a team with several members). The same is true when you look at the pattern of virtuals some local cachers log - the involved travel is not feasible and even less by them who at the same time claim finds in our neck of the wood.

[+noncentric]

A major part of this discussion is about whether it is ok if one puts a request of the type "Please ......" in the cache description without any mentioning of log deletions and also without taking them into consideration. To my surprise many here do not find this request acceptable and that's what I still cannot understand.

The OP did mention log deletions, which was the impetus for posts about ALR's. If the OP's request was just a "request", then I would honor it if I happened to read it before making the find. Although personally, I don't cache in groups.

 

 

Question to people who group cache:

 

If you saw this in the cache description, would you honour the request?

 

Group cachers: Instead of one group-name-of-the-day log in the logbook, please log each individual trailname in to the logbook.

 

If a cache owner placed this request on their cache, then deleted any online logs where the logger's trailname didn't appear in the logbook, do you think Groundspeak would support the cache owner or the group cacher?

[cezanne]

A major part of this discussion is about whether it is ok if one puts a request of the type "Please ......" in the cache description without any mentioning of log deletions and also without taking them into consideration. To my surprise many here do not find this request acceptable and that's what I still cannot understand.

The OP did mention log deletions, which was the impetus for posts about ALR's. If the OP's request was just a "request", then I would honor it if I happened to read it before making the find. Although personally, I don't cache in groups.

 

 

Question to people who group cache:

 

If you saw this in the cache description, would you honour the request?

 

Group cachers: Instead of one group-name-of-the-day log in the logbook, please log each individual trailname in to the logbook.

 

If a cache owner placed this request on their cache, then deleted any online logs where the logger's trailname didn't appear in the logbook, do you think Groundspeak would support the cache owner or the group cacher?

 

Yes, I know that the OP mentioned log deletions, but in some line of the discussion here the simple request (which does not mention log deletions) received a negative feedback.

narcissa even got that far to state that it's a controlling cache owner who comes up with such a request (note that my question asked explicitely stated that log deletions are out of consideration).

Moreover, I still think that it is debatable what signing a log book means as what has been written before is true: By a single generic signature in a cache log book everyone around the world can log a find for that cache for that day and I really wonder whether that's how the signing guideline is intended.

[+Astro_D]

I go group caching usually once a week with 3-4 other cachers. When it comes to signing the logbook - we simply put the first initial of each of our cache names on the log sheet. It takes up one line so it saves space and no need to come up with a group name for the day. Haven't had any complaints so far. As far as honoring the OP request - chances are we wouldn't see it as we tend not to read the cache page unless were really stuck.

[+narcissa]

the type of group caching some group members are at home or somewhere else and far from the cache is wrong in my opinion

 

I don't see anyone defending this type of caching. It's difficult to detect or enforce unless you assume that everyone is trying to get away with it. And if that's what you think of other geocachers, then why be a cache owner in the first place?

[+narcissa]

Actually, statistically, a cache with 5 finds and 100% favorites implies that it is worth visiting.

 

Statistically, all it means is that five people in a row gave it a favourite point. Statistically, a sample of five can't be extrapolated to the rest of the population with any reliability.

 

How you interpret this statistic, or the points system itself is subjective. When I notice a cache with lots of FPs, I generally assume it has some sort of crowd-pleasing gimmick that I may or may not appreciate. At most, it means the cache description and logs are worth a closer glance if I am thinking of caching in the vicinity of that cache. It doesn't mean it's worth visiting, to me. Your interpretation, which assumes automatically that the cache is worth visiting, is valid, but not inherent from the statistic.

[+justintim1999]

Actually, statistically, a cache with 5 finds and 100% favorites implies that it is worth visiting.

 

Statistically, all it means is that five people in a row gave it a favourite point. Statistically, a sample of five can't be extrapolated to the rest of the population with any reliability.

 

How you interpret this statistic, or the points system itself is subjective. When I notice a cache with lots of FPs, I generally assume it has some sort of crowd-pleasing gimmick that I may or may not appreciate. At most, it means the cache description and logs are worth a closer glance if I am thinking of caching in the vicinity of that cache. It doesn't mean it's worth visiting, to me. Your interpretation, which assumes automatically that the cache is worth visiting, is valid, but not inherent from the statistic.

 

5 visits and 5 favorite points would put it on my list to do. If you only take a closer look at the cache page because of the favorite points doesn't that indicate that they have some level of significance?

[+Team Microdot]

[+thebruce0]

This is what many local cache owners thought up to the point when GS reacted as I have cited in this thread. They thought that in the case such a group does not sign with the names of the members, then they have a chance to question the found it logs.

Noone has believed that this could be done if the names are in the log sheet.

As I said, if there is reason to doubt that a person has actually found the cache, despite claiming their presence under a group name, then it would be the CO's judgement, potentially a reason to take to appeals. That's why I say if the group confirms their presence, then it would generally stand; I would find it extremely rare any case that GS would side with a CO in that case, unless the CO has a history of problematic ownership responsibilities. The finder has, by every viable means, validated the legitimacy of their claim - group name in the logsheet, claimed with the group, group confirms their presence. Could it be a lie? Sure. Is it ever? Extremely rarely, I would wager confidently.

 

The group caching I referred to negatively affects others' experiences as it leads to cache archivals, planned caches that do not get hidden, an unfriendly atmosphere in the community etc

 

> If the finds are valid, then no they don't affect me.

 

Not you because what's important to you is something which is not important to others like me and vice versa.

Yes, what you value may be different than other people.

That's the definition of subjective, and why it can't be enforced as a universal rule.

Sure, an annoyed owner may archive a good cache, or choose not to place any more. But that does not directly affect me or anyone else - if I didn't know of the situation, I'd be none the wiser. It's a side effect of someone else's choice after becoming upset at difference in ethic - it doesn't immediately affect my geocaching activity. If you were all about the hike, not the find (as you repeatedly emphasize), then this shouldn't bother you - you could still go for the intended hike and experience the CO had previously provided, despite there no longer being a cache there. You can ask and get all the info, even pretend the cache is still there, do the hike and enjoy it! Ya just wouldn't get a smiley at the end...

 

There are some things we can choose to let bother us, and there some things that directly affect us.

 

Actually honesty and integrity ccount more for me than whether a log book is accurate.

Sure, me too. I don't think anyone here is even remotely arguing that dishonesty and lack of integrity is more valuable than an accurate log history.

 

The dishonesty and the perception what an insincere community this is cannot be avoided. That's not a question of being a cache owner and how to act as a cache finder.

It precisely is. And since you can't control what other people do, only encourage what you subjectively feel to honest and to have integrity, you directly play into the perception of the community as well. Rule breakers can and should be verified and dealt with. But different caching ethics that don't break rules? Not so much. So, set the good and positive example for the community, recommend good ethics with solid reasoning (not just personal preferences); but don't go on crusades (and I say this for your own sake , and I learned this first hand as well)

 

There's a different between ethically "right", and allowable by the letter of the law. Couch logging may be allowable if one employs a loophole to claim it (because that presumes it can't be falsified, so it's on the honour system), but that does not mean I think it's "right".

Actually, it is very easily falsifiable in most cases that I come across in my area (meaning that the involved cachers come from my province, not necessarily that the caches are located there). Of course someone who logs e.g. local caches on the days around the Block party (sometimes even on the day of the party) and then logs the block party on the day it took place in the US with the same text found some logs below, is not credible (no, it's not a team with several members). The same is true when you look at the pattern of virtuals some local cachers log - the involved travel is not feasible and even less by them who at the same time claim finds in our neck of the wood.

We're not talking about events. We're talking about names in a log book. And yes, as we said, if you can verify that a claim to a find cannot be valid, then you as the CO have the right to delete it. As the CO.

 

I don't care if someone in Germany logs the Block Party event from their couch. But if that same german logs one of MY physical caches on the same day as one in Germany (this has happened), then I will go about the process of asking them to either verify their find with me (describe it), or check the logbook, or ask them to delete their log, and only then take the step of deleting it myself once every method of verification is exhausted. Because I'm the CO and it's my responsibility, and because that Find log may incorrectly imply the current condition of my cache.

 

It's not worth my time to get uptight about logging practices on others' caches, especially if not physical.

But we're not talking about virtual logging. We're talking about group logging practices on physical caches. Sure you can take that to an extreme conclusion by connecting dots, but then the discussion loses its relevance.

 

To be back on subject, if that German's log was a claim with a group find, I can't and shouldn't immediately presume it to be fake just because they're overseas - it could be a team log, a husband/wife duo where one is here and one is in Germany. In that case my initial thought could be wrong, and the find log IS valid. Maybe they even don't reply to my request for verification. At that point my only recourse is the physical logbook. If the team name is the logbook, and dated properly, then I'm technically obliged to leave the Find log as valid. Personally, I probably won't get to that point anyway, if I believe my cache to be in good condition as implied by the Find.

 

If a group of 30+ people come and logged my cache, as I said earlier, when only 2 or 3 found it and the rest claimed it under the one group name, I won't care as long as the finds correctly imply the findable state of the cache. I won't like it or enjoy seeing copy/paste logs with no relevance to the cache, but their caching ethic in that case may differ from mine, and they haven't broken any rules or provided any misinformation.

I would personally now find it a little anal retentive to require that every individual sign their own names in the logbook. As I described earlier, I feel that would be an ALR, above and beyond the minimal logging requirements (altering the basic guidelines clauses). I might ask if I had good reason to, but not at the threat of log deletion.

[+bflentje]

 

Is it a coincidence that most derailed and run-on threads involve the same people over and over again?

[+Team Microdot]

 

Is it a coincidence that most derailed and run-on threads involve the same people over and over again?

 

No.

 

But this time around - not guilty your honour

[+bflentje]

 

Is it a coincidence that most derailed and run-on threads involve the same people over and over again?

 

No.

 

But this time around - not guilty your honour

 

Ha, I wasn't suggesting who.. let alone you. You're safe from the executioner.

[+Team Microdot]

 

Is it a coincidence that most derailed and run-on threads involve the same people over and over again?

 

No.

 

But this time around - not guilty your honour

 

Ha, I wasn't suggesting who.. let alone you. You're safe from the executioner.

 

Bless you

[+boothie103]

So if I was in a car 10 miles away on a team hunt for trophy gold, as many logs as the team could register and never even saw the cache, can I still log it as found? Criticise away please. Please be harsh.

[+thebruce0]

Actually, statistically, a cache with 5 finds and 100% favorites implies that it is worth visiting.

 

Statistically, all it means is that five people in a row gave it a favourite point. Statistically, a sample of five can't be extrapolated to the rest of the population with any reliability.

Actually, technically it means that five people in a row gave it a favourite point. That's it.

Its statistics "imply" (key word you glossed over) that given that 100% favoured rate, it's worth visiting. Alter that statistic down to 14%, and the implication is that only 14% of visitors found it worth favouriting. A very different interpretation.

 

At that point, yes you are then projecting reasons for the success rate. Either that the stats misimply - that a favourite doesn't mean favourite - or that you must understand what each favourite point meant to the person who posted it. The latter is a perfectly reasonable step, because the reason one person "favourites" a cache may differ from another. But that level of definition isn't in the stats, which only show "favourite points" and ratio.

 

How you interpret this statistic, or the points system itself is subjective. When I notice a cache with lots of FPs, I generally assume it has some sort of crowd-pleasing gimmick that I may or may not appreciate. At most, it means the cache description and logs are worth a closer glance if I am thinking of caching in the vicinity of that cache. It doesn't mean it's worth visiting, to me. Your interpretation, which assumes automatically that the cache is worth visiting, is valid, but not inherent from the statistic.

I interpret the stats exactly as it implies - that it has a 100% favourite rate of 5 visits, and therefore is considered worth visiting. I take that into consideration, but like you, I'll also be curious as to why it's hit that rate, and read the description and past logs. I may or may not then agree with the implication. But nonetheless, the stats imply it's worth visiting. Imply. I just wanted to say that word one more time

 

If I see a cache with 100% favourite points over 5 visits, my initial impression is that it's earned a good reputation. I'll be wary of course since 5 visits is relatively young. But if I see that same cache listed at 14% with 35 visits, oh yes my initial impression will be quite different! With no other information, the latter will seem (once I project my own experience with observing fav points) more like an average cache. If I learn that it was actually 6 visits, with 30 people not logging favourite even though each of the prior 5 visits did, then I may once again consider it as worth a visit as if it still had a 100% ratio. Those 30 group-caching logs have certainly affected my perception of the cache in that instance.

Of course, after all that mental analysis, I still may or may not enjoy the cache or give it a fav point myself. But that's irrelevant - the point I latched on to in this particular side-topic was about the impression of group/batch logging on a great cache, which someone felt can hurt its reputation.

 

Someone else said that if they saw a request on the listing of a cache they found asking for a favourite point (I'll add, "if you enjoyed the cache"), then they immediately wouldn't reward one. I wouldn't jump to that resolution myself. I'd see that request as a reminder, and perhaps even a tip - like "hey, I put effort into this cache, and I'd appreciate you supporting its visibility by giving it a point if you think it's worth one", and so I may pay more attention that cache and if I think it is, I will. Otherwise I might have forgotten to add one. It's a good reminder AND, if I'm caching with a group, seeing that request may also prompt me to jot in my field note to give it a +1 when I log it with all the others (especially if it's in the middle of a mundane trail) as I make efforts to do on a day of high numbers. So it's a good request, IMO.

 

PS: I completely agree that favourite points on a cache may be entirely irrelevant to me; heck, I've favourite a random simplistic cache just because it evoked a memory in my mind and I wanted to 'reward' it for that. So I'm not saying favourites necessarily mean a cache is worth visiting. it *ahem* implies such merely by the label "favourite points".

[+thebruce0]

Is it a coincidence that most derailed and run-on threads involve the same people over and over again?

Nope! It's also no coincidence that there's always someone to perpetuate the very effect they're announcing by announcing it.

 

So if I was in a car 10 miles away on a team hunt for trophy gold, as many logs as the team could register and never even saw the cache, can I still log it as found? Criticise away please. Please be harsh.

heh, first, I'd ask you to define "team". One account shared by you and at least one other person who was there with the cache? Or multiple people under a temporary caching label that was signed in the logsheet?

 

If the former, then yep it's legit.

But presuming the latter, I'd say that's a bad practice. But if you got away with it, I wouldn't care (especially if the Found It implication on the cache status is valid)

But, I presume there'd be a lengthy process, depending on how OCD both the finder and owner are about getting their own way.

I think that Groundspeak would side with the finder, IF it comes down to a he-said-she-said; that is, if the owner can't prove that the person was not there.

But if the owner can demonstrate that this individual's claim to a find is invalid for whatever verifiable reason, or can convince GS of this, then they'd be able to legitimately delete the find log (even if leaving others' Find logs from the 'group').

 

I also think if it took a while to get that point in deliberation with GS, they might suggest that the owner (and/or finder) decide to just let something like this go in the future.

[+L0ne.R]

 

If I see a cache with 100% favourite points over 5 visits, my initial impression is that it's earned a good reputation. I'll be wary of course since 5 visits is relatively young. But if I see that same cache listed at 14% with 35 visits, oh yes my initial impression will be quite different! With no other information, the latter will seem (once I project my own experience with observing fav points) more like an average cache. If I learn that it was actually 6 visits, with 30 people not logging favourite even though each of the prior 5 visits did, then I may once again consider it as worth a visit as if it still had a 100% ratio. Those 30 group-caching logs have certainly affected my perception of the cache in that instance.

Of course, after all that mental analysis, I still may or may not enjoy the cache or give it a fav point myself. But that's irrelevant - the point I latched on to in this particular side-topic was about the impression of group/batch logging on a great cache, which someone felt can hurt its reputation.

 

 

The FP issue is one of the important reasons why I had considered adding the statement "Group cachers: Instead of one group-name-of-the-day log in the logbook, please log each individual trailname in to the logbook." And one of the important reasons why I had hoped that Groundspeak would favour the cache owner who would want to enforce the logging of trailnames so that they match the online logs.

 

There is still some value in the FP system. People use the FP system to help them decide which caches they will spend time and gas money on.

 

And the other important reason is, there is great value in the logs. If you're at the trailhead trying to decide if the cache is worth your time, 30 cut n paste logs that say nothing about the good cache, make it look like a 'meh' cache. Most GPS units don't show you more then 5 posts. The app shows more, but who wants to keep scrolling past 30 cut n paste power logs with the expectation that the 40th through 45th logs are relevant logs.

 

Thank you for supporting my observations bruce0, since you are also in my general geocaching area, know about team caching in the area, know that some team players think once one person signs the log there's no need to visit the cache ('you can skip that one, I've already logged it for the team'), and have observed the hit on FPs and the online logs.

 

Groundspeak could do something to make this game more rewarding for cache owners who care. We've made suggestions in the forums that don't involve deleting logs. Both power cachers and more leisurely quality seeking cachers could have a good experience. But they choose to side with power cachers and not provide more tools for quality seekers. Cache owners who want people to actually visit their caches and not treat them like they are another notch on the belt, their only recourse is to quit hiding. I don't like that option.

[+thebruce0]

Indeed, and I honestly think another option with potential is the 'useful' upvote option. Doesn't have to deal with drama of determining validity of logs to delete, and helps those 'informative' (or entertaining, or whatever) useful logs bubble to higher visibility (not disappear or reorder), making scanning through 35 logs for the 5 or 6 actually relevant ones much easier and quicker.

 

And yeah, in our area, I also know from first hand reports of at least one instance where names of cachers in a group have been signed individually into a cache that was accessed illegally and those cachers from the group informed that they can log it found if they wished - even though they didn't go for the cache precisely because they didn't have the means at the time to find it without trespassing. (and did not appreciate their names being individually signed for them specifically instead of the group name)

So yeah, it happens, and people do know the loopholes; but there are still respectable finders and owners out there

Edited March 15, 2016 by thebruce0

[cezanne]

The finder has, by every viable means, validated the legitimacy of their claim - group name in the logsheet, claimed with the group, group confirms their presence. Could it be a lie? Sure. Is it ever? Extremely rarely, I would wager confidently.

 

It is not extremely rarely but happens regularly. It is pretty evident that GS does not want to interfere. Moreover, they will never be able to decide which team members have been at which caches.

Suppose that a group splits into 3 parts and hunt for caches that are far apart. If all caches are logged with the team name, there is absolutely no means to deciding which logs are legitimate for which caches and that's among others what these people exploit.

 

That's the definition of subjective, and why it can't be enforced as a universal rule.

 

Of course not, but a simple rule that the normal procedure should be to sign with the individual caching name except in special circumstances would definitely be very easy and simple.

 

If you were all about the hike, not the find (as you repeatedly emphasize), then this shouldn't bother you - you could still go for the intended hike and experience the CO had previously provided, despite there no longer being a cache there. You can ask and get all the info, even pretend the cache is still there, do the hike and enjoy it! Ya just wouldn't get a smiley at the end...

 

I have told you many times before that it's not the logging history I'm concerned about. I can do whatever hike I want but it will not change the perception that so much dishonesty and lack of integrity is around in the community. Whatever I will do, it will not change the general perception.

 

Sure, me too. I don't think anyone here is even remotely arguing that dishonesty and lack of integrity is more valuable than an accurate log history.

 

But why are then constantly arguing about the log history when my concern is at the other level (and with that I do not mean whether someone did a climb or not or how someone defines a find).

 

It precisely is. And since you can't control what other people do, only encourage what you subjectively feel to honest and to have integrity, you directly play into the perception of the community as well. Rule breakers can and should be verified and dealt with. But different caching ethics that don't break rules? Not so much.

 

The reaction by Groundspeak shows that they do not care about rule breakers (as they do not care at all about the logs for their own block party).

 

So, set the good and positive example for the community, recommend good ethics with solid reasoning (not just personal preferences); but don't go on crusades (and I say this for your own sake , and I learned this first hand as well)

 

I'm not going on crusades anyway. It just was the final reason for me to stop to visit events in my area at all as I do not want to meet these people.

 

We're not talking about events. We're talking about names in a log book. And yes, as we said, if you can verify that a claim to a find cannot be valid, then you as the CO have the right to delete it. As the CO.

 

Of course, the topic is not events but it's typically the same type of people who write group logs (in the sense that not everyone has been there) and armchair log events, ECs and virtuals.

They feel that they have done everything required - sending in answers for ECs and virtuals and let someone sign a group log for physical caches.

By reactions by GS of the type I have posted these people get the confirmation that the guideline interpretation of GS backs them up which is particularly painful as I originally used to believe that physical caches with a log book are less prone to such strategies.

 

If a group of 30+ people come and logged my cache, as I said earlier, when only 2 or 3 found it and the rest claimed it under the one group name, I won't care as long as the finds correctly imply the findable state of the cache. I won't like it or enjoy seeing copy/paste logs with no relevance to the cache, but their caching ethic in that case may differ from mine, and they haven't broken any rules or provided any misinformation.

 

So you really think that a rule makes sense that allows 30+ people to log a cache (under their individual accounts) if only 2 or 3 visited it and signed with an unmatchable group name just used for that very day?

 

I would personally now find it a little anal retentive to require that every individual sign their own names in the logbook. As I described earlier, I feel that would be an ALR, above and beyond the minimal logging requirements (altering the basic guidelines clauses). I might ask if I had good reason to, but not at the threat of log deletion.

 

The gist of the request is that all persons are listed not that everyone signs the log him/herself. Why is it anal to write something like "Please ....................:".

[+thebruce0]

It is not extremely rarely but happens regularly. It is pretty evident that GS does not want to interfere. Moreover, they will never be able to decide which team members have been at which caches.

Suppose that a group splits into 3 parts and hunt for caches that are far apart. If all caches are logged with the team name, there is absolutely no means to deciding which logs are legitimate for which caches and that's among others what these people exploit.

Lying. "Rare." Globally. Relative to the worldwide geocaching community. It can happen more often in some regions than others. Still globally rare, I would confidently wager.

 

> That's the definition of subjective, and why it can't be enforced as a universal rule.

 

Of course not, but a simple rule that the normal procedure should be to sign with the individual caching name except in special circumstances would definitely be very easy and simple.

No, it would result in enormous loads of battles and appeals that GS doesn't want to have to deal with. Understandably so. Especially when the vast majority are easily passed over because the implication of the find logs as they pertain to followup finders is accurate. Findable.

 

> If you were all about the hike, not the find (as you repeatedly emphasize), then this shouldn't bother you - you could still go for the intended hike and experience the CO had previously provided, despite there no longer being a cache there. You can ask and get all the info, even pretend the cache is still there, do the hike and enjoy it! Ya just wouldn't get a smiley at the end...

 

I have told you many times before that it's not the logging history I'm concerned about.

"it leads to cache archivals, planned caches that do not get hidden" - you.

That is what I was referring to. If you care about the experience, not the logging history (as we just agreed you repeatedly emphsize), then the fact that caches aren't hidden shouldn't bother you, because you can still do the hikes, have the experiences as the owner had intended, just without getting the smiley at the end.

 

I can do whatever hike I want but it will not change the perception that so much dishonesty and lack of integrity is around in the community. Whatever I will do, it will not change the general perception.

I'm genuinely sympathetic and saddened that your local community is as bad as you imply that it is. If it's verifiable rules that are being broken but nothing is being done (by owners, and perpetuated by finders), that's rough. But if it's merely caching ethics that differ which don't directly affect you, then please understand - I really do hope that you find a way to come to terms with the frustrations so that they don't bother you as much as they apparently do, so that you can enjoy the experience without letting others dictate to you how you should enjoy it.

You can tell people who may have the wrong impression of geocaching in your area what it's truly like, show them how great it can be, don't let the negative impression perpetuate in the minds of people don't know any better. That's on you, on all of us.

 

The reaction by Groundspeak shows that they do not care about rule breakers (as they do not care at all about the logs for their own block party).

But what rule? I haven't seen rules broken, just loopholes taken advantage of that don't directly affect you (find logs that imply an accurate cache state, but posted by someone who was not "there with" the group that signed in).

Events do not have log books. And this isn't about virtual logging of non-physical caches. This is about verifying logs of individuals under group names in a physical log book in order to support a requirement clause in a cache listing, else face log deletions.

 

No threat of log deletions? Not an ALR, no obligations, both owner and finder can decide how to respond to the other.

Threat of log deletions? ALR. Finders will likely find success over owners if still signing under a group name.an the owner can't prove the find is invalid.

 

Of course, the topic is not events but it's typically the same type of people who write group logs (in the sense that not everyone has been there) and armchair log events, ECs and virtuals.

They feel that they have done everything required - sending in answers for ECs and virtuals and let someone sign a group log for physical caches.

By reactions by GS of the type I have posted these people get the confirmation that the guideline interpretation of GS backs them up which is particularly painful as I originally used to believe that physical caches with a log book are less prone to such strategies.

You're lumping everything into one category. That is not the case. The problem is that false logs which can't be verified as false do happen, but so rarely that it's apparently deemed not worth creating more stringent rules to combat it.

 

GS rightly doesn't want to tighten the noose so much that people can't just enjoy the activity of geocaching, yet while still providing enough flexibility and basic guidelines that the spirit of geocaching can be communicated sufficiently so that the global community can play well together.

 

If a group of 30+ people come and logged my cache, as I said earlier, when only 2 or 3 found it and the rest claimed it under the one group name, I won't care as long as the finds correctly imply the findable state of the cache. I won't like it or enjoy seeing copy/paste logs with no relevance to the cache, but their caching ethic in that case may differ from mine, and they haven't broken any rules or provided any misinformation.

So you really think that a rule makes sense that allows 30+ people to log a cache (under their individual accounts) if only 2 or 3 visited it and signed with an unmatchable group name just used for that very day?

"Makes sense", yes, because no other method is viable. Plenty of other examples of situations posted in this thread show how requiring that every individual logging a cache as Found online have their unique account name written in the log book is simply far too impractical, and opens the door to too many other problems.

"Makes sense", yes, even though of course it would be nice to have some way for the ideal to be the norm. That ain't going to happen.

 

I would personally now find it a little anal retentive to require that every individual sign their own names in the logbook. As I described earlier, I feel that would be an ALR, above and beyond the minimal logging requirements (altering the basic guidelines clauses). I might ask if I had good reason to, but not at the threat of log deletion.

The gist of the request is that all persons are listed not that everyone signs the log him/herself. Why is it anal to write something like "Please ....................:".

Please read my quote again.

 

...*steps back and away for a while*

[+L0ne.R]

Just an FYI, I've asked the mods to close the discussion. It was a great one. Thanks for all the participation. We've reached the point of a going over the same stuff so time to put this one to bed (for now).

[Cascade Reviewer]

Closing thread for L0ne.R.