Jump to content

How have fake find logs affected your caching experience?


Ed_S
Followers 6

Recommended Posts

I hope this discussion can remain civil. Rather than pollute another thread with this different topic, I decided to start a discussion just to address this question. So, if you're going caching, and one of the caches you plan on searching for has a false "found" log, in what way (if any) does that affect your day?

 

To me, as I've said over and over, it matters not at all, because if I'm going to look for caches,  the challenge is between the cache owner and his/her hiding ability, and me, the seeker. What others do has no bearing upon my caching experience.

 

The responsibilities of cache ownership have no bearing on this discussion - it's purely about you, the seeker, and whether a cheater's false log has any effect on your caching trip.

 

Others have said they are affected by a false "found" log. How, as someone planning to search for the cache, are you affected?

 

  • Funny 4
  • Surprised 1
Link to comment

I had six things to say,  realized you were the "blah, blah, blah..." guy, and couldn't decide which were going to be the best, stress-free examples.

So, based on past examples in another thread, decided to just bag it... 

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 1
  • Helpful 2
Link to comment

For me, by and large it does not make difference to me what others do.

 

However, if there is a broken / damaged / missing cache that really should be archived and make room for a new cache, and then people go dropping Find logs on it then that keeps a faulty cache alive - that can be quite frustrating. Wasting time looking for something that isn't there when I could be out hunting other caches is annoying. I don't have that much free time available to go hunting, so I prefer to go hunt for things that can be found.

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment

For me, caching is a community activity where some of us hide caches for others to find, and for that to work well it requires integrity from both owners and seekers. Taken individually, a fake find mightn't have much impact, but collectively it erodes that integrity and community trust.

 

A case in point: last year someone logged a find on a T4 multi of mine where the content of the log made me think they'd only reached the first waypoint, which is a fairly easy T2.5 hike from the trailhead. The first impact that log had was to coerce me into climbing the steep hill to check the logbook and sure enough there was no signature there. So then I had to compose a message to the "finder", trying to explain how multis work without coming across as a punitive enforcer, then send a follow-up message and email when that brought no response, and finally I reluctantly deleted their log. But had I followed the OP's "fake logs don't hurt anyone" philosophy and let their log stand, others could then rightfully say "Why do I have to do that difficult climb up the hill to sign the logbook when you let XXX get away with just finding the first waypoint?" How do I answer that without sounding like a politician?

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 4
Link to comment

It affects me the same way any other false information about the cache affects me, whether it's a "false find" or a mistaken find or a "virtual" find or incorrect info in the cache description or an obsolete hint. Or, for that matter, me misunderstanding something. It's just one more obstacle that affects me just like the obstacles the CO intentionally puts in my way. (*shrug*)

Link to comment

Fake logs keep broken caches alive, not least caches that are lost and/or unmaintained, where the faker can log safely.

 

Fake logs routinely downvote great caches, both in FPs and in words. They increase the ratio of unappreciative logs, which makes it less encouraging to build advanced custom caches. Yes, you always get a number of TFTCs, but fakers make it worse.

 

Fake logs create extra work for the CO to check, double-check that there is no log, contacting the cheater to as politely removethe log, and then monitor the result until it feels right to remove it. Some would remove immediately, of course, but doing that too quickly can cause conflicts.

 

Fake logs take up space in the history and the COs mailbox.

 

Therefore, yes I do care about them. They do hurt the hobby.

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Posted (edited)
21 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

I had six things to say,  realized you were the "blah, blah, blah..." guy, and couldn't decide which were going to be the best, stress-free examples.

So, based on past examples in another thread, decided to just bag it... 

I was going to say something about sanctimony but didn't want to get the sensitive types all worked up. I'll just stop there.

 

 

Edited by Ed_S
  • Funny 2
Link to comment
14 hours ago, Unit473L said:

For me, by and large it does not make difference to me what others do.

 

However, if there is a broken / damaged / missing cache that really should be archived and make room for a new cache, and then people go dropping Find logs on it then that keeps a faulty cache alive - that can be quite frustrating. Wasting time looking for something that isn't there when I could be out hunting other caches is annoying. I don't have that much free time available to go hunting, so I prefer to go hunt for things that can be found.

 

That's a reasonable point, and to avoid that myself I try to limit my searches to 10 minutes or so. If I haven't found it by then, and I'm on a schedule, I move on.  But I look at previous logs when deciding whether to include a cache in my itinerary, so I know there's been several DNFs, and I can extrapolate that it's either a very tough hide, or it's missing. One find among the DNFs might be a fake log, or the cacher might have just lucked out and stumbled across it. I have no way of knowing. But the DNFs tell me to set myself a time limit.

 

  • Funny 2
Link to comment
13 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

But had I followed the OP's "fake logs don't hurt anyone" philosophy and let their log stand, others could then rightfully say "Why do I have to do that difficult climb up the hill to sign the logbook when you let XXX get away with just finding the first waypoint?" How do I answer that without sounding like a politician?

 

That's a fair point, and one I hadn't considered. I wasn't reading that much into it - I was just picturing compiling a list of a dozen or two caches I wanted to hit, and one of them had a fake find log among the other logs. In your example, yes, you couldn't justify doing nothing. But a lot of people just write the tersest of logs - a simple "TN, LN" or maybe "Found it" or similar. May I suggest that a note on the cache page in in order, clarifying that it's a multi and the hike to the final is tough?

 

 

  • Funny 2
Link to comment
39 minutes ago, seffnjarah said:

Fake logs on unloved caches have prevented legitimate finders from using that cache as a qualifier on unloved finds challenges. 

Yeah I have a list of the 1000 caches not found in the longest time in my province (for personal challenge purpose only because those challenge are now banned) and because we have a group of 4-5 people that are armchair logger my list isn't accurate at all...

Link to comment
23 minutes ago, Lynx Humble said:

Yeah I have a list of the 1000 caches not found in the longest time in my province (for personal challenge purpose only because those challenge are now banned) and because we have a group of 4-5 people that are armchair logger my list isn't accurate at all...

When those challenge caches were allowed, I have had false logs ruin it for me. The owner didn't remove the non-finds, even when pointed out, so annoying to more then one cacher.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

I've DNF'd a "special" (for whatever reason) cache (sometimes the first one to do so) and put it on my watch list to see if it is found again.  A fake find would have me planning to go there and try again - some of these are a distance from home (in the last 6 years we've put more than 75,000 miles on our trailer) - so a false log would impact me greatly at times, costing money and time I could use for other places.  Yes, if there were a string of other DNF's it would have less impact, but that's not always the case.  I've seen the next log after my DNF to be a find and then confirmation the cache is/has been missing.  

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
16 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

But had I followed the OP's "fake logs don't hurt anyone" philosophy and let their log stand, others could then rightfully say "Why do I have to do that difficult climb up the hill to sign the logbook when you let XXX get away with just finding the first waypoint?" How do I answer that without sounding like a politician?

I don't know about the OP, but when I shrug over fake logs, one of the factors I'm considering is that COs can and do delete fake logs, especially in cases where they're obvious and it matters.

 

By the way, I think you're making your problem with fake logs as a CO worse by overthinking them. You saw for yourself that the log wasn't signed. Just delete the find and explain, matter-of-factly, how you reached your conclusion that the log was a mistake, then invite the seeker to provide additional arguments if it wasn't a mistake and he really thinks the find should be allowed. I suspect the mistake most COs make is to accuse the seeker of doing something duplicitous instead of just treating the situation as an obvious and simple mistake that you, as the CO, are properly correcting as a favor for the seeker so he doesn't have to be bothered to fix it himself.

 

2 hours ago, seffnjarah said:

Fake logs on unloved caches have prevented legitimate finders from using that cache as a qualifier on unloved finds challenges. 

Interesting. I don't think I've ever seen that happen. About the closest I've seen is someone dropping a replacement for a cache that had been "unloved" for so long that it had disappeared. If I suspected a fake log on an unloved cache, and I decided to find the cache anyway and discovered the claimed signature was missing, I'd go ahead and claim credit for loving that unloved cache, explaining in the challenge cache log why I think the on-line log is wrong.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
5 minutes ago, The Jester said:

I've DNF'd a "special" (for whatever reason) cache (sometimes the first one to do so) and put it on my watch list to see if it is found again.  A fake find would have me planning to go there and try again - some of these are a distance from home (in the last 6 years we've put more than 75,000 miles on our trailer) - so a false log would impact me greatly at times, costing money and time I could use for other places.

My problem with this is that the situation would be exactly the same if the cache was really there, but you just can't find it. Your argument would make it seem reasonable to say a legitimate find log also wastes your time and money.

 

But this has a simple solution that I'd use for reasons not related to fake logs: if I DNFed a cache that was a significant effort to get to, and then someone else found it, before I spent the time and money to go back, I'd talk to the person that found it. I'd be assuming they really did find it and be asking to gather information about how I could have missed it, but if it turned out to be a fake find, that would surely come out in the conversation.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

False finds don't change my life one iota except for the fact that I don't want to be knowingly associated with anything deemed to be based on a lie or phoney or of poor character or taste. I find it amazing that people will go out of their way to make themselves look good based on fake finds but then don't give a rip at how lame they look when it is revealed (and proven) that they've cheated.

  • Upvote 5
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
7 hours ago, Ed_S said:

May I suggest that a note on the cache page in in order, clarifying that it's a multi and the hike to the final is tough?

 

I'd hope the heading on the cache page would be enough to convey that it's a multi and that it's not going to be an easy walk:

 

image.png.03749c8f20b70162b86299ff82728a33.png

 

The trouble is the "click GO and follow the arrow" app-only cachers not only don't look at the cache page, they don't read the description on the app as it's hidden away as something to only be read if you get stuck. But even then, this is what awaits seekers at the listed coordinates:

 

Waypoint.thumb.jpg.9f414a922e1736caa456a1d6f8ed342e.jpg

 

The card says "the bushranger awaits you in the cave at the top of the hill" and gives the coordinates for that cave, so I'd have thought it pretty obvious there was more to do in order to claim a find.

 

This was the "find" log I got:

image.png.2c987de8adf0fd641dbe5a753d7f3087.png

It was the sprained ankle that gave it away, as there was no way she could have climbed that hill if she'd sprained her ankle just getting to Wanda, but I still had to go up there and check just to make sure there was no signature in the logbook. She was a PM newbie who'd never visited the website and this was her first cache, so I wasn't about to just delete her log without at least trying to offer a bit of explanation and encouragement, so this is the message I sent her:

 

Quote

Hi, back in April I saw your log on my multicache Plodfoot's Revenge. At the time I was curious how you managed to complete this cache if you'd sprained your ankle just getting to Wanda, but with the lock-down, travel restrictions and the recent run of wet weather, I haven't been able to get out there to do a routine cache check until today. The Wanda doll is just the first stage of this multicache, with the coordinates of the actual cache printed on the card she's holding. The cache itself is in a cave at the top of the hill, some 300 metres away horizontally and 100 metres up vertically (this is where it gets its terrain-4 rating), and on checking this morning I couldn't find your name in its logbook. I'm attaching a copy of the note in Wanda's hand should you wish to complete this cache, but in the meantime I'd appreciate it if you'd remove your "Found It" log or change it to a "Write Note".

Thanks,
Jeff

 

She never responded and eventually I deleted her log. She did go on to find another 11 caches, though, all easy traditionals, before giving the game away mid-year and letting her premium membership lapse.

 

Sadly this is becoming all too common a story, especially with all the newbies now starting off with premium membership before they even attempt their first cache, but if we're at the point where non-traditional caches need to have detailed explanations about cache types, terrain ratings and attributes written into the description, well, maybe I should just step back from being a CO.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1
  • Love 3
Link to comment
8 hours ago, Ed_S said:

One find among the DNFs might be a fake log, or the cacher might have just lucked out and stumbled across it. I have no way of knowing.

 

For this exact reason my preference is to include photos in my log, as evidence that the cache has successfully been found, but at the same time trying to not be a spoiler. Mind you, I try to include photos in all my finds, including adding photos to TB's.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
6 hours ago, Unit473L said:

 

For this exact reason my preference is to include photos in my log, as evidence that the cache has successfully been found, but at the same time trying to not be a spoiler. Mind you, I try to include photos in all my finds, including adding photos to TB's.

You have only found 104 caches. Some people (not me) find more than that in one day. Imagine needing to add a photograph for all those caches.

 

There is nothing wrong though in you supplying a photograph, as long as it isn't a spoiler. A log without showing the cache I would think reasonable. If there's a photograph of the cache, it makes it harder for the CO to ask a non-signer for proof of find, by asking for a description of the cache, as they can get the description from the photograph. I too include photographs with the TBs, usually the TB in the pick up and drop of logs, and general pictures of where they visited in between. Here is an example. I have had this TB (which was sent off on a mission to get to me) for much longer than usual, because the Australian borders have been closed. I was meant to hand it onto another friend of the TB owner (who has sadly died) after this was sent :(, but with borders closed I have been unable to. I am keeping it to pass onto someone who knew the CO, not just releasing it to anyone. TB6BTFK Anyway, the CO used to keep saying how much she loved Australia, so I imagine, if she could see the photographs taken in Australia, she would be pleased. I do look forward to when I can pass the TB to another friend of the TB owner.

Edited by Goldenwattle
Link to comment
On 6/28/2021 at 9:47 AM, dprovan said:

My problem with this is that the situation would be exactly the same if the cache was really there, but you just can't find it. Your argument would make it seem reasonable to say a legitimate find log also wastes your time and money.

It's not waste if there is something to found.

Link to comment
On 6/28/2021 at 4:52 PM, Goldenwattle said:

When those challenge caches were allowed, I have had false logs ruin it for me. The owner didn't remove the non-finds, even when pointed out, so annoying to more then one cacher.

These "lonely days" challenges are absolutely great and should be allowed! But it would help them if COs checke on suspicous fakes.

Link to comment
On 6/29/2021 at 12:29 AM, barefootjeff said:

 

I'd hope the heading on the cache page would be enough to convey that it's a multi and that it's not going to be an easy walk:

 

image.png.03749c8f20b70162b86299ff82728a33.png

 

The trouble is the "click GO and follow the arrow" app-only cachers not only don't look at the cache page, they don't read the description on the app as it's hidden away as something to only be read if you get stuck. But even then, this is what awaits seekers at the listed coordinates:

 

Waypoint.thumb.jpg.9f414a922e1736caa456a1d6f8ed342e.jpg

 

The card says "the bushranger awaits you in the cave at the top of the hill" and gives the coordinates for that cave, so I'd have thought it pretty obvious there was more to do in order to claim a find.

 

This was the "find" log I got:

image.png.2c987de8adf0fd641dbe5a753d7f3087.png

It was the sprained ankle that gave it away, as there was no way she could have climbed that hill if she'd sprained her ankle just getting to Wanda, but I still had to go up there and check just to make sure there was no signature in the logbook. She was a PM newbie who'd never visited the website and this was her first cache, so I wasn't about to just delete her log without at least trying to offer a bit of explanation and encouragement, so this is the message I sent her:

 

 

She never responded and eventually I deleted her log. She did go on to find another 11 caches, though, all easy traditionals, before giving the game away mid-year and letting her premium membership lapse.

 

Sadly this is becoming all too common a story, especially with all the newbies now starting off with premium membership before they even attempt their first cache, but if we're at the point where non-traditional caches need to have detailed explanations about cache types, terrain ratings and attributes written into the description, well, maybe I should just step back from being a CO.

I had the same thing recenly from a beginner who thought finding the start of two of my multis would count. I politely wrote back and explained the rules. No reply. Deleted.

 

The same beginner has two suspicious finds on two T5s that are likely to be gone. Anyone TFTC log on a T4+ or D4+ is suspicious, and even more so after those two proven fakes.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, The Jester said:

It's not waste if there is something to found.

But just because you didn't find it doesn't mean it isn't there. Is every search a waste if it ends in a DNF?

 

  • Funny 2
Link to comment
6 hours ago, The Jester said:

It's not waste if there is something to found.

I'm glad you agree it's not a waste when you can't find the cache that's there, at least. But you never know whether there's something to be found on any search, so the only logical way to say this is, "It's not waste if I think there is something to be found." Your experience is no different regardless of whether the last log is a fake find log after the cache disappeared or a real find log from before the cache disappeared.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
On 6/30/2021 at 10:47 AM, dprovan said:

Your experience is no different regardless of whether the last log is a fake find log after the cache disappeared or a real find log from before the cache disappeared.

 

And who knows, if it actually is missing you may well have actually found it if it were there. In many cases it's clear where the cache should be, so obvious if it's missing - but it may have been "replaced" somewhere else incorrectly, who knows; any number of reasons. But if you go for it under the impression it is there, end off with a DNF, and find out that it was actually missing - it's different if you find out the prior find was a false log that had you searching when you'd otherwise have passed, and also postponed any alert and maintenance for the cache owner who may have been able to fix it in short order. 

I do think the biggest effects of false finds though are on the cache owner and the health score, moreso than potential finders. If there is a problem, the system thinks there isn't if it's been logged "found", and the cache owner may also consider the cache okay to be found when it really needs maintenance. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Posted (edited)

When I'm planning an attempt on a higher terrain cache, particularly a T4 or greater, I'll go through the past logs (usually there are only a handful of them) to try to get a feel for what to expect and if there's anything I'm likely to need (rope, a ladder or perhaps some companions) before setting off for the day. A fake log suggesting it's a fairly easy reach, or worse several of them, can instil a false sense of security and is potentially dangerous. Here's an example I recently came across on a 5/5 cache:

 

Quote

Found itFound it

Very fun cache I had a great time. Took the family here on the way to Sydney yesterday and picked up another difficult cache too

 

Now that doesn't sound too bad, does it, since they just stopped off to nab it with the family while driving past on the way to Sydney. Fortunately I know the CO and even his T3s aren't something to undertake lightly or with a young family in tow; even his water access T5s aren't kayaking P&Gs, there's nearly always some pretty challenging rock-hopping and climbing needed at GZ. Certainly the other handful of logs on that cache suggest this one is no exception, but, well, there's always the possibility those cachers took the hard way in and there's a family-friendly approach none of them were aware of. Not likely in this case, but as I said, I know the CO and I know most of the other finders, but if I were a visitor to the area, or a newbie, I might well be deceived by that fake log, and in the sort of terrain where that cache is likely to be hidden, that could easily turn very nasty.

 

It seems that's not the only armchair find this cacher has made on higher D/T caches, as the COs who've checked haven't found any matching signatures in their logbooks. This is not good for the game.

Edited by barefootjeff
  • Upvote 4
  • Funny 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
On 6/30/2021 at 9:47 AM, dprovan said:

I'm glad you agree it's not a waste when you can't find the cache that's there, at least. But you never know whether there's something to be found on any search, so the only logical way to say this is, "It's not waste if I think there is something to be found." Your experience is no different regardless of whether the last log is a fake find log after the cache disappeared or a real find log from before the cache disappeared.

Schrodinger's Cache?

Link to comment

Let's avoid having this thread turn into a new version of "Found it = Didn't find it."  That long-running thread had to be closed because individual geocachers were called out, directly or indirectly, for their logging practices.  A post to this thread has been hidden because it disclosed details making it quite easy to identify the geocacher in question.

  • Helpful 2
Link to comment
Posted (edited)

One thing that I think Ed isn’t considering is that the problem of fake found it logs may not be an issue on any ONE cache but is a problem at scale. 
 

What if there is somebody out there walking around in society, who is a compulsive liar. Does that affect me? Probably not. Now let’s say that 99% of the people walking around in society suddenly become compulsive liars. Does that affect me?  Yes, I can imagine it would. 
 

What if, in a bizarre episode of the twilight zone,  there were no geocaching containers out there.  We just think there are.  So every time an honest person searched it results in a DNF. Would this still be a fun hobby?  Not for me. 
 

If you agree with the extreme boundaries instead of focusing on the “any one cache” example, then we can realize that it’s a problem of scale. At what point do false logs start to ruin our enjoyment?  10%? 50%?  

 

I’d prefer not to find out. So why don’t we collectively as a community agree that it’s a bad thing on principle, while any single fake log might not ruin our day. 
 

 

Edited by HoochDog
typos
  • Upvote 4
  • Helpful 2
Link to comment
2 hours ago, HoochDog said:

One thing that I think Ed isn’t considering is that the problem of fake found it logs may not be an issue on any ONE cache but is a problem at scale. 
 

 

That's true. My original thought when starting this thread was the possibility that out of a day's planned caches, maybe one of them had a fake found log. The many directions the discussion has taken since that point, while that point itself was ignored, has been at times interesting, amusing, and perhaps some other things as well.

 

2 hours ago, HoochDog said:

What if there is somebody out there walking around in society, who is a compulsive liar. Does that affect me? Probably not. Now let’s say that 99% of the people walking around in society suddenly become compulsive liars. Does that affect me?  Yes, I can imagine it would. 
 

What if, in a bizarre episode of the twilight zone,  there were no geocaching containers out there.  We just think there are.  So every time an honest person searched it results in a DNF. Would this still be a fun hobby?  Not for me. 
 

 

But if you start out with "What if ..." you can go anywhere. On either side of the discussion. I'd rather deal with facts. If a tough hide is there, but the newbie cacher can't find it, it's still there. If that same newbie cacher files a fake found log, the cache is still there. If the next cacher to seek that cache also can't find it, the cache is still there, regardless of the fake found log being a fake. 

 

It's a fact that most of the cachers out there do not cheat, and do not file fake found logs. Those who do are relatively rare. Most classes have a "class clown" but very few have more than one. 

 

2 hours ago, HoochDog said:

If you agree with the extreme boundaries instead of focusing on the “any one cache” example, then we can realize that it’s a problem of scale. At what point do false logs start to ruin our enjoyment?  10%? 50%?  

 

That's a personal threshold. Judging by some of the responses I've gotten here, apparently one fake found log is enough to send some into OCD spasms. Others have said that any time a cacher suspects any log on any cache is a fake, the cache owner must immediately rush out and validate the find or remove the fake log, lest the cacher waste his time searching fruitlessly for a cache that isn't there, as opposed to searching fruitlessly for a cache that is there, but well hidden.

 

2 hours ago, HoochDog said:

I’d prefer not to find out. So why don’t we collectively as a community agree that it’s a bad thing on principle, while any single fake log might not ruin our day. 
 

 

 

I agree, fake logs can be a detriment, but I recognize that anywhere I've ever cached,  fake found logs are a rarity. And I'd be pretty confident in stating that all of us, at one time or another, have found a cache that had a fake found log, and didn't even realize the fake lot was there.

 

  • Funny 2
  • Surprised 1
Link to comment
17 hours ago, HoochDog said:

What if, in a bizarre episode of the twilight zone,  there were no geocaching containers out there.  We just think there are.  So every time an honest person searched it results in a DNF. Would this still be a fun hobby?  Not for me.

Yes, it wouldn't be fun if there were no caches, but it wouldn't be fun because there are no caches. People posting fake finds obscuring the fact that there are no caches doesn't strike me as an interesting factor in what makes your hypothetical not fun.

 

17 hours ago, HoochDog said:

I’d prefer not to find out. So why don’t we collectively as a community agree that it’s a bad thing on principle, while any single fake log might not ruin our day.

Any false information is undesirable, of course. As far as I know, no one here is celebrating or encouraging fake logs. I'm just saying the primary issue is the lost cache, and a log telling you it wasn't lost at some point after it really was already lost doesn't significantly alter your experience. Fake logs are bad. People that intentionally post a lot of fake logs are bad people. COs should delete fake logs when they detect them. And a significant number of fake logs in an area require action. But a missing cache is part of geocaching that seekers must take for granted whether the last log was a legitimate find or a fake find.

Link to comment
On 7/6/2021 at 11:39 AM, Ed_S said:

Judging by some of the responses I've gotten here, apparently one fake found log is enough to send some into OCD spasms.

Well that's a gross mischaracterization.  I didn't get that from any comments, in any of these threads.

 

 

On 7/6/2021 at 11:39 AM, Ed_S said:

Others have said that any time a cacher suspects any log on any cache is a fake, the cache owner must immediately rush out and validate the find or remove the fake log

Nor was that ever said. Only that it's the cache owner's responsibility to maintain the integrity of their cache listing. "must immediately" is something you threw in there.

Everyone has agreed and accepted that there is a risk when searching for a cache that it may be missing - it may have gone missing at some point after a legitimate find log, and nothing could be done about that. That is not the point.

The point is that we do not condone people posting false finds, whether intentionally or not. And that a cache owner's responsibilities include removing known false logs, whether or not cache owners do that regularly. If it comes to light that a CO is not removing false logs but letting them stand, they can - and do - face consequences from reviewers or hq as shirking cache owner responsibility. Letting false logs stand is contrary to the whole basis of the hobby - finding geocaches. That hammer doesn't come down with one single incident, it happens when tptb feel that a pattern is emerging and requires attention, usually a suspension of cache publishing rights.

 

 

13 hours ago, dprovan said:

Fake logs are bad. People that intentionally post a lot of fake logs are bad people. COs should delete fake logs when they detect them. And a significant number of fake logs in an area require action.

This!

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment

I recently circled back and found a DNF from a month or two ago. When I opened it, there was no log sheet to be found. There had been a number of people that had found it since I marked it as a DNF. I'm curious as to how many people (past and present) have actually didn't find it but marked it as found.

 

I did message the cache owner that there was no log sheet, but still waiting to hear back.

Link to comment

 

On 7/7/2021 at 2:37 PM, thebruce0 said:

The point is that we do not condone people posting false finds, whether intentionally or not. And that a cache owner's responsibilities include removing known false logs, whether or not cache owners do that regularly. If it comes to light that a CO is not removing false logs but letting them stand, they can - and do - face consequences from reviewers or hq as shirking cache owner responsibility. Letting false logs stand is contrary to the whole basis of the hobby - finding geocaches. That hammer doesn't come down with one single incident, it happens when tptb feel that a pattern is emerging and requires attention, usually a suspension of cache publishing rights.

 

 

For what seems like the eleven millionth time: FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THE CACHE FINDER, ONE FAKE FOUND LOG HAS NO EFFECT ON ONE'S CACHING EXPERIENCE. 

 

Why the heck do you and others insist on bringing up what you want the cache owners to do? Are you deliberately trolling?  I don't know how I can be more plain - this isn't about the cache owner - it's about the cache seeker. 

 

  • Funny 3
  • Surprised 2
Link to comment

There have been a couple of caches in my area with fake logs that caused me to head to GZ. When I get there, it is obvious that the cache is gone. "Hidden under the jersey barrier at the end of the road." Well, the barrier is gone, and the road has been extended into a housing development.

 

A cache owner that didn't check on their cache in over a year (these were park 'n grabs, and were within 5 miles of the CO's home), coupled with a couple of fake logs. So, yes, these fake logs did have an effect on my caching experience. 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
8 hours ago, Ed_S said:

Why the heck do you and others insist on bringing up what you want the cache owners to do?

Part of cache maintenance is deleting finds that are shown false. That's true regardless of whether or not you think fake logs affect one's caching experience.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
14 hours ago, The Jester said:

That is your opinion but is not a universally shared opinion.  So for what seems like the eleven millionth and one time:  For some cache finders one fake log does have an effect on their caching experience.  You keep "yelling" your opinion so much, you are not listening to some of us who have had fake logs effect our experience.  Just accept that some of us have differing experiences than you and so do not share your opinion (I doubt this will change your mind or your opinion spouting but I had to say it).

 

I ask for the same courtesy. Yes, there are isolated instances where someone hay have had their caching day interrupted by their belief that a cache might be there when it is not. But how is that different than looking for a cache that is there, which you cannot find? 

 

Can you sense my frustration with trying to discuss caching from the standpoint of the seeker, and being inundated with blather from those who insist everyone cache the way they think we should all cache, especially that cache owners should do this or that, as if nobody has anything going on in their life other than "preserving the integrity of the cache."

 

  • Funny 3
  • Surprised 1
Link to comment
16 hours ago, Wet Pancake Touring Club said:

There have been a couple of caches in my area with fake logs that caused me to head to GZ. When I get there, it is obvious that the cache is gone. "Hidden under the jersey barrier at the end of the road." Well, the barrier is gone, and the road has been extended into a housing development.

 

A cache owner that didn't check on their cache in over a year (these were park 'n grabs, and were within 5 miles of the CO's home), coupled with a couple of fake logs. So, yes, these fake logs did have an effect on my caching experience. 

 

 

 

The barrier the cache had been hidden under has been removed, and the road extended. Nobody noted this in any DNF or note, prior to the fake found log? Did you check that the cache wasn't simply relocated to a side of the road? It's possible someone left a throwdown cache because they couldn't find the original. Did you check? 

 

"A cache owner ..."   BZZZT! We're not talking about the cache owner.

 

  • Funny 2
  • Surprised 1
Link to comment
9 hours ago, dprovan said:

Part of cache maintenance is deleting finds that are shown false. That's true regardless of whether or not you think fake logs affect one's caching experience.

 

"Part of cache maintenance is ..."  BZZZT! We're not talking about the cache owner.

  • Funny 3
Link to comment
33 minutes ago, Ed_S said:

The barrier the cache had been hidden under has been removed, and the road extended. Nobody noted this in any DNF or note, prior to the fake found log? Did you check that the cache wasn't simply relocated to a side of the road? It's possible someone left a throwdown cache because they couldn't find the original. Did you check? 

 

"A cache owner ..."   BZZZT! We're not talking about the cache owner.

 

Sorry, but in your reply, you implicitly invoked the cache owner. If the cache was relocated, that would have been done by the cache owner, who should have updated the cache listing as part of their maintenance. So yes, by your own reply, the cache owner is part of the equation.

 

No prior DNF, but prior real find was almost 2 years before. I know the CO, they put out park n' grabs, and generally they only do maintenance when someone else notes a problem. Little to no pre-emptive maintenance. The locals quickly find them, and then they go dormant. When I got to GZ, the housing development was nearing completion. Curbs installed, landscaping being done, housing in the final process of finishing. No place to relocate to that wasn't being worked on. GZ on the cache listing was still in the middle of the road. And, as for how this affected my caching experience, I was trying to maintain a streak for a different challenge cache. I went out of my way to get this cache. Now, I had to research another park n' grab cache, and go even farther out of my way to find it. 

 

And seriously, a throwdown?!?

 

I illustrated how a fake log affected my caching experience. However, like many others on this forum, coming up with a list that illustrates a potential problem is not enough. We like to come up with possible solutions to the problem. And some of those solutions will involve the cache owner.

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 2
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Ed_S said:

"Part of cache maintenance is ..."  BZZZT! We're not talking about the cache owner.

Two points are being made here. The first is that, individually, a fake log isn't a big deal. There's been very little argument about that, just people pointing out specific cases where fake logs upset them. But the other point is making sure we don't forget that, nevertheless, good COs should clean up incorrect logs when they are detected. Both points are valid and both are relevant to this conversation, and the second is perhaps the more important at this point because we've all, for the most part, agreed on the first, at least in principle.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Ed_S said:

I ask for the same courtesy. Yes, there are isolated instances where someone hay have had their caching day interrupted by their belief that a cache might be there when it is not. But how is that different than looking for a cache that is there, which you cannot find? 

 

Can you sense my frustration with trying to discuss caching from the standpoint of the seeker, and being inundated with blather from those who insist everyone cache the way they think we should all cache, especially that cache owners should do this or that, as if nobody has anything going on in their life other than "preserving the integrity of the cache."

 

 

There is more to this than just fake finds on missing caches. I often look back through previous logs, either as part of my homework before heading off caching (especially on higher terrain ones) or when scratching my head at GZ and seeking inspiration. I rely on those past logs being truthful. A false log that just says TFTC isn't too problematic, but one that's dressed up to look like a real log is, and could have me searching in the wrong place or create a dangerous situation, such as the example I gave earlier on the 5/5 cache.

 

Here's another example in case you're still not convinced of the importance of truthful logs. When planning the cache I did for my 1000th find, a terrain 4.5 in remote rugged terrain, I spent a considerable amount of time staring at satellite images, trying to decide which of several possible approach routes would cause me the least grief. The CO's suggestion was to follow the cliff-line around from the east, but that involved crossing a deep and steep gully, and the satellite images suggested an easier but longer way might be to come in from the north along the ridge lines. Reading through the previous logs, it appeared I wasn't the only one to think that, but those logs painted a picture of almost endless thick spiky scrub and hidden drop-offs whereas the ones who came from the east spoke of unexpected trails and generally easier going. It was those past logs that eventually convinced me to take that route, which was still tough but we got there though it was a full day's walking even after gleaning every last hint from those logs. Without those honest past logs to rely on, the day may well have had a different outcome.

 

For me, the question of fake logs is more about the integrity of the game than just the integrity of one cache.

Edited by barefootjeff
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
9 hours ago, Ed_S said:

I ask for the same courtesy. Yes, there are isolated instances where someone hay have had their caching day interrupted by their belief that a cache might be there when it is not. But how is that different than looking for a cache that is there, which you cannot find? 

 

Can you sense my frustration with trying to discuss caching from the standpoint of the seeker, and being inundated with blather from those who insist everyone cache the way they think we should all cache, especially that cache owners should do this or that, as if nobody has anything going on in their life other than "preserving the integrity of the cache."

 

Then have the courtesy to stop stating your opinion as absolute fact.  I've heard and understand your opinion, but hold a different one:  Fake logs can have an effect on a finders experience, but not always.  But also understand that part of emotion that can come from a fake log may include some towards the CO who didn't maintain the cache listing properly.  It's all interconnected.

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
22 hours ago, Wet Pancake Touring Club said:

 

And seriously, a throwdown?!?

 

People drop throwdowns all the time.

 

22 hours ago, Wet Pancake Touring Club said:

I illustrated how a fake log affected my caching experience. However, like many others on this forum, coming up with a list that illustrates a potential problem is not enough. We like to come up with possible solutions to the problem. And some of those solutions will involve the cache owner.

 

Can you, just this once, forget about the cache owner and approach this from the standpoint of my OP, which I've repeated endlessly to figurative deaf ears, evidently?

 

If you want to talk about what the cache owner should do (in your opinion) then start your own thread.

 

  • Funny 4
Link to comment

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
Followers 6
×
×
  • Create New...