Jump to content

Longevity in the game


Recommended Posts

On 6/13/2021 at 4:21 AM, Goldenwattle said:

Except I remove her log. After asking for other proof of find, or a description of the cache, which she has never managed to provide. So it does impact my caching experience. It's so much easier when everyone signs the log and this isn't necessary.

You're trying to skew the discussion. From the standpoint of a cacher deciding on which caches he or she wants to hit on a given day, the cheater in question makes no impact. To the cache owner, whose viewpoint you're trying to introduce to this discussion, yes, you might want to remove the cheater's Found Log.  But I'll say it again - whether someone cheated logging a cache, whether it's there or not, makes not one iota of difference to anyone else looking for the cache. 

 

And you're off on a tangent about those who mark caches that aren't there as found - what about the majority of cheaters, who mark active caches as found, without finding them? The only way to discover their cheating is to compare the cache log against the online log. 

 

Stop nit-picking and trying to argue, and go find an ammo can in the woods!

 

  • Surprised 1
Link to post
On 6/12/2021 at 11:26 AM, thebruce0 said:

First, this isn't something that can be anecdotally dismissed because it hasn't personally affected you. In the same way, I personally have been affected by false find logs, so....

In what way have you personally been affected? If a cache has 37 Found logs and one of them is by a cheater who didn't actually find it, how did that affect you? If a cache has a dozen DNFs, including some by people with thousands of finds, and one person with three finds to their name logs it as Found, how does that affect you?

 

On 6/12/2021 at 11:26 AM, thebruce0 said:

Second, I'm avoiding "cheating" because this happens both intentionally and unintentionally. And it has a very negative connotation where people can easily infer that this is a competitive game, which it isn't (even though cheating can be done against yourself).  Yes, false finds can and have been posted on listings which have not been found and are actually missing.

Again - so what? Did you see that there were multiple DNFs, no indication of owner maintenance, and one newbie claims to have found it? Then you knew what you were getting into when you chose to look for that cache.

 

On 6/12/2021 at 11:26 AM, thebruce0 said:

Third, a string of DNFs followed by a false find can reset the cache health score, which sets the CO at ease so they feel no urgency in coming out to check and/or fix their geocache, and again geocachers who - whether the false finder has many or few geocaches - may feel the cache is in fact findable when it is in fact not - but only the CO would know.

Is there any one of us who hasn't failed to find a cache that actually is there? You're acting like one Found log in the midst of several DNFs guarantees that it's there and is able to be found. I own a cache or two that are not considered appropriate for newbies, and I see DNFs on them. I don't run right out and check on it with every DNF. I intended the caches to be hard to find, and they are. As for resetting the cache health score - oh, come on! You're really grasping at straws trying to prove I"m wrong. Or at least that's how it appears to me.

 

On 6/12/2021 at 11:26 AM, thebruce0 said:

Fourth, of course everyone can judge the situation themselves. I think most experienced geocachers take logs from accounts with very few finds with a grain of salt. That doesn't change the fact that false logs, especially finds, can mislead followup geocachers and the cache owners.  Whether it's "cheating" or not.

 

Link to post
26 minutes ago, Ed_S said:

And you're off on a tangent about those who mark caches that aren't there as found - what about the majority of cheaters, who mark active caches as found, without finding them? The only way to discover their cheating is to compare the cache log against the online log. 

Yes, that's what many COs do; compare the logs. It's the usual way to discover cheats. How else! They regularly check the condition on the cache and the log. It's called cache maintenance and it's part of being a good CO.

 

26 minutes ago, Ed_S said:

But I'll say it again - whether someone cheated logging a cache, whether it's there or not, makes not one iota of difference to anyone else looking for the cache. 

It can. The cache might be missing, but someone logging a false find leads people to believe the cache is still there and wastes their time looking. It might also falsely alter the cache health score, so the  DNFs are ignored.

 

26 minutes ago, Ed_S said:

You're trying to skew the discussion. From the standpoint of a cacher deciding on which caches he or she wants to hit on a given day, the cheater in question makes no impact.

It does, on the CO, and on other geocachers who turn up expecting to find the cache, as after all, the previous finder marked the cache as there, by logging a find. (Also on the cache health score.) This wastes the following geocachers time because it is missing. I'm not the one skewing the situation at all. A cheater does make an impact, although they possibly don't see it, or won't admit it.

 

And why your aggression in your replies to people?

Edited by Goldenwattle
  • Upvote 3
  • Surprised 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to post
On 6/12/2021 at 4:58 PM, barefootjeff said:

Interesting that you mention that, particularly in the context of this thread. ...

 

So I've learnt my lesson not to jump to conclusions based on someone's raw newbie status or even the incredible odds that they came along in the couple of hours of daylight after our group visit on that very day to a cache that gets so few finds.

 

"Taking with a grain of salt" doesn't mean assuming it's false. Not sure why you jumped to the extreme interpretation of my comment with your example, unless you were just demonstrating how you assumed something incorrectly.  I wouldn't have immediately thought that the log you describe was false just because of their few finds, but in similar situations to that here I do have a bit of healthy skepticism on reading a log with very few finds - which is not personal, just the effect of experience: not jumping to conclusions, just "taking with a grain of salt".  Likewise, just because someone has an inordinate number of finds doesn't automatically mean their log is 100% accurate. 

 

 

Link to post
4 hours ago, Ed_S said:

In what way have you personally been affected? If a cache has 37 Found logs and one of them is by a cheater who didn't actually find it, how did that affect you? If a cache has a dozen DNFs, including some by people with thousands of finds, and one person with three finds to their name logs it as Found, how does that affect you?

 

Any time the log history misleads about the state of a cache, it can affect decisions like "should I detour to visit that cache and find it?" That decision may absolutely be weighed by prior logs. If a cache that would otherwise seem to be missing is 'confirmed' with a find, that can change someone's decisions to use time and money they may not have otherwise. You're asking an extremely subjective question. The point is that incorrect logs can be misleading. To what degree, or to what effect will entirely depend on a value judgment by the geocacher.  Logs are not 100% innocuous. They present a community-sourced status. And cache owners use them to decide about how they maintain their geocaches. It's not always about "cheating", and it is a cache owner's responsibility to maintain the integrity of their listing. 

Our reviewers do crack down on cache owners who are known to allow finds on caches that are not findable; or show excessive allowance of proxy maintenance, rarely if ever maintaining their own caches.

 

4 hours ago, Ed_S said:

Again - so what? Did you see that there were multiple DNFs, no indication of owner maintenance, and one newbie claims to have found it? Then you knew what you were getting into when you chose to look for that cache.

 

Why? It's as bad to "assume" the newbie's log is false as it would be to "assume" they actually did find it and it's available. The intended assumption - the intent - of the log history is provide an accurate list of activity on a geocache. The starting point should be that a Find log is accurate. It's up to the CO to ensure that's as true as possible; that's part of their responsibility as a cache owner. Obviously the vast majority of COs don't/can't live up to that ideal perfectly. And as cache finders we know there's always a chance that the recent history is not accurate. But that does not excuse people from posting false logs that can mislead geocachers and cache owners about the geocache's current state, in addition to having an effect on the cache health score which is intended to improve the ability for COs to maintain their caches.

 

A find log state: This geocache was confirmed and found, and is findable. A find log on a geocache where that's not the case is misleading, and can and does affect people's decisions about how to treat that geocache.

 

4 hours ago, Ed_S said:

Is there any one of us who hasn't failed to find a cache that actually is there? You're acting like one Found log in the midst of several DNFs guarantees that it's there and is able to be found.

 

That's what the log implies. Of course we've all DNFd a cache that's there. But if I go for a cache even knowing the risk of a DNF, then can't find it, there are two possible reasons: It's there and I was outsmarted in my search, or it's not there and I never would have found it. In the latter case, it's absolutely reasonable for someone to be mad that their time/money was "wasted" if their decision to search was influenced by a find log that implied it was there.

 

 

ETA: Additionally, the more that false logs aren't removed, the more it perpetuates the notion that it's okay to "find" caches without signing, or even verifying that it's findable, let alone "finding" caches from the couch. Like I said earlier, whether or not you think false logs affect you directly, they absolutely do affect the community in the greater context.

Edited by thebruce0
  • Upvote 1
  • Love 1
Link to post
9 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

 

"Taking with a grain of salt" doesn't mean assuming it's false. Not sure why you jumped to the extreme interpretation of my comment with your example, unless you were just demonstrating how you assumed something incorrectly.  I wouldn't have immediately thought that the log you describe was false just because of their few finds, but in similar situations to that here I do have a bit of healthy skepticism on reading a log with very few finds - which is not personal, just the effect of experience: not jumping to conclusions, just "taking with a grain of salt".  Likewise, just because someone has an inordinate number of finds doesn't automatically mean their log is 100% accurate. 

 

 

Sorry, I wasn't meaning to jump to any extreme interpretation of your comment, just giving a very recent example of when a raw PM newbie who's never visited the website and only had one previous find under their belt actually did everything right on a reasonably challenging multi. I've lost count of the number of times I've had to send messages to newbies explaining how non-traditional cache types work, especially in the last couple of years when everyone seems to start off with a premium membership even before they've found their first cache. Either they've logged finds because they got to zero metres at the listed coordinates or log a DNF because there wasn't anything there.

 

When I was starting out, I found seven traditionals before plucking up the courage to try a multi and, as a well-trained engineer, made sure to read and absorb all the documentation about cache types on the website, as well as the description and previous logs on that cache, before venturing out. But that's not how most are introduced to the game now, instead a lot of them see caching as just a point-and-go phone app game, and with the official app discouraging them from looking at the description, I would have bet pounds to peanuts that there wasn't going to be a signature in the logbook when I went to check on the cache.

 

At the other extreme, perhaps, I had a couple of newbie logs on one of my traditionals over the long weekend. It's one I usually check on after a find as I'm fairly fussy about how I like it to be rehidden, and just as well I did. Not only was it poking out of its hiding place in plain sight, they'd also managed to break the zipper on the novelty container. I've just been out buying a new (and hopefully more robust) zipper and will take it off line shortly for some time in the workshop.

Edited by barefootjeff
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
14 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Likewise, just because someone has an inordinate number of finds doesn't automatically mean their log is 100% accurate.

Yep.... I've come along after a few 10-20,000 find cachers have on trails, and the lack of signatures in the log has been conspicuous....

  • Surprised 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, Goldenwattle said:

I have occasional noted the same thing. Not necessarily on trails; it might have been on an individual cache.

It's only occasional for sure, the vast majority of the time I haven't checked the electronic log before, and even then would rarely pay attention anyway. Recently we did a trail, granted the 'finder' was only c.3000 finds, but they had logged every cache we found, and we didn't see one signature (12 caches across a 70 or so cache section in a large powertrail).

Link to post
1 hour ago, lee737 said:

It's only occasional for sure, the vast majority of the time I haven't checked the electronic log before, and even then would rarely pay attention anyway. Recently we did a trail, granted the 'finder' was only c.3000 finds, but they had logged every cache we found, and we didn't see one signature (12 caches across a 70 or so cache section in a large powertrail).

If I find that I sometimes photograph the log with my signature and previous signatures. I don't mention names of the cacher who didn't sign, but I have written that's it's interesting to compare the two logs, or I signed after such & such (the last signature), which makes it clear that the person who logged after them didn't sign.

However, some other people name names. Comments such as that now they know how that person has made so many finds. I've seen that.

  • Helpful 1
Link to post
On 6/16/2021 at 7:28 AM, Goldenwattle said:

If I find that I sometimes photograph the log with my signature and previous signatures. I don't mention names of the cacher who didn't sign, but I have written that's it's interesting to compare the two logs, or I signed after such & such (the last signature), which makes it clear that the person who logged after them didn't sign.

 

Another annoyance on this level are people who sign anywhere and/or don't include a date. It makes determining who actually signed much more difficult because you can't just take a photo of the log as evidence of chronological order. You'd need to photograph every page, front and back, and even then the chronology isn't guaranteed. Part of me thinks people make use of this loophole, and the side effect is owners are less likely to feel that checking the logs is even going to be fruitful in anyway. *irk*

  • Helpful 1
Link to post
1 minute ago, thebruce0 said:

 

Another annoyance on this level are people who sign anywhere and/or don't include a date. It makes determining who actually signed much more difficult because you can't just take a photo of the log as evidence of chronological order. You'd need to photograph every page, front and back, and even then the chronology isn't guaranteed. Part of me thinks people make use of this loophole, and the side effect is owners are less likely to feel that checking the logs is even going to be fruitful in anyway. *irk*

 

Allied with that is an increasing number of people, particularly newbies, who sign the logbook with a different name to what they use online. Often in the logbook is what appears to be their real name, as if they're taking "sign the logbook" literally in the same way they'd sign a cheque. Fortunately most of my caches get few finds so usually the dates match up, unless they get the date wrong or don't date their signature, but even then I can generally match something in the logbook with any online log I'm a bit dubious about. It'd be a different story on caches that regularly get multiple finds per day, though.

Link to post
8 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

 

Another annoyance on this level are people who sign anywhere and/or don't include a date. It makes determining who actually signed much more difficult because you can't just take a photo of the log as evidence of chronological order. You'd need to photograph every page, front and back, and even then the chronology isn't guaranteed. Part of me thinks people make use of this loophole, and the side effect is owners are less likely to feel that checking the logs is even going to be fruitful in anyway. *irk*

I take that into account when I make a comment, and often scan the log looking elsewhere. Some logs though aren't that long (here anyway in Australia; perhaps because of a lower population), so it's not that hard to do that. After the initial lot of logs after a cache is published, anyway.

I too get annoyed with people who sign out of order. It's not so bad if they fill in a space on the last page, but bad if they go back several pages. It's also annoying when some people leave space, encouraging people to then sign out of order.

Link to post
On 6/14/2021 at 9:07 AM, Goldenwattle said:

 

And why your aggression in your replies to people?

Because you're insisting that I do my geocaching according to your rules, not my rules. You're presenting your way of caching as the one and only "right" way to do it. You're insisting that my way is "wrong."

 

 

  • Funny 1
  • Surprised 1
Link to post
33 minutes ago, Ed_S said:

Because you're insisting that I do my geocaching according to your rules, not my rules. You're presenting your way of caching as the one and only "right" way to do it. You're insisting that my way is "wrong."

 

 

Scratching my head here :blink:. I can only think your comment means that you don't consider cache maintenance a high priority and that signing the log is optional! Otherwise I don't know what you are talking about.  They are not my rules by the way. What I did mention was basically thinking of other people and how an action can affect their enjoyment of the game, such as someone logging a find when they never found the cache, and it's actually missing, and so cause other people to think the cache is there, and waste time searching for a missing cache. Strange you have a problem with this consideration. This is part what I wrote re consideration, "It does, on the CO, and on other geocachers who turn up expecting to find the cache, as after all, the previous finder marked the cache as there, by logging a find. (Also on the cache health score.) This wastes the following geocachers time because it is missing. I'm not the one skewing the situation at all. A cheater does make an impact, although they possibly don't see it, or won't admit it." Consideration for those that follow and take notice of previous logs.

Edited by Goldenwattle
  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 1
Link to post

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...