Jump to content

How have fake find logs affected your caching experience?


Ed_S
Followers 6

Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

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.

What about cache owners who deliberately use inaccurate GPS readings in their cache pages? When I lived in Ohio, there were at least two in my caching area who would purposefully use coordinates that would bring you near, but not too near, the cache. They'd bump up the difficulty points, as if that offset their inaccurate coordinates. There are all sorts of things people looking for caches have to deal with. You either learn to deal with them, and learn which cachers can be believed, or you'll quit in frustration. 

 

Forget about the widely-held assumption that a fake log is only found after a string of DNFs. Right smack in the middle of a bunch of found logs, how does a fake found log interfere with your caching day? The cache is there, others before and after have found it, but the cheater logged it from his La-Z-Boy. I'd be willing to bet that happens much more often than the cheater who claims a find at a cache that isn't there any more.

 

 

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

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.

I was hoping for a calm discussion on how you believe fake logs effect your cache-finding trip, but others can't let go of their obsession with the responsibilities (as they want them to be) of the cache owner. Frankly, I'm surprised this thread is still going on. I keep saying "from the standpoint of seeking caches ..." and most of my replies tell me what the cache owner should do. I fully agree the cache owner who allows fake logs to exist is negligent, but that has little bearing on someone who simply wants to go spend the day finding caches. If a fake log appears in the midst of other found logs, as many of them do, there's no effect whatsoever - other than someone else claimed a find they didn't earn. How does that affect you? It doesn't, other than if you know they do that sort of thing, you should also know not to trust them anywhere else. If someone claims a find after a string of DNFs, and you don't recognize them as a liar, do you go look for that cache despite the DNFs and the lack of indication of owner maintenance? And if you do that, how do you know whether it's not really there or if it's just a tough hide?

 

  • Funny 2
Link to comment
On 6/27/2021 at 8:47 AM, Ed_S said:

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 above is a quote from your original post.

 

On 7/9/2021 at 7:43 AM, Ed_S said:

It's possible someone left a throwdown cache because they couldn't find the original.

59 minutes ago, Ed_S said:

People drop throwdowns all the time.

A throwdown is, in my mind, a false find log - couldn't find it, placed a container and claimed a find...so when YOU find that throwdown, you are not finding what the CO intended and it's then NOT a challenge between you and the CO's hiding ability at all.  And as far as affecting MY cache experience...I can't count the number of times hubby and I are searching and we each find a container.  Sometimes it's obvious which is the original, sometimes not.  It can cause confusion, and frustration.

 

We have one pretty specifically themed cache that was the victim of a throwdown, and that cacher and the 8 subsequent loggers didn't get the experience we intended.  Once we rectified it, and notified folks of the throwdown discovery, several came back for the "real" experience.

On 7/8/2021 at 1:18 PM, Ed_S said:

FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THE CACHE FINDER, ONE FAKE FOUND LOG HAS NO EFFECT ON ONE'S CACHING EXPERIENCE. 

 

In our case, one finder's "throwdown" (fake log) affected several subsequent finders' experiences - one even mentioned in her log that she was disappointed with the find - it wasn't what she had expected, based on the cache description and her knowledge of our previous hides.  This alerted us that something was amiss, as it *should* have been the experience she expected!!  The throwdowner's "fake find" gave several subsequent finders a sub par experience - and it had a significant effect on a few who took the time to come back and log the REAL cache.

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
53 minutes ago, Ed_S said:

What about cache owners who deliberately use inaccurate GPS readings in their cache pages? When I lived in Ohio, there were at least two in my caching area who would purposefully use coordinates that would bring you near, but not too near, the cache.

I have come upon that when I was newish to geocaching and did nothing about it. Now if I do find that cache and the coordinates are well off, presuming it isn't a puzzle cache, I will give the correct coordinates in my log and possibly make a NM and say coordinates need correction. Coordinates for a traditional cache should be correct.

 

47 minutes ago, Ed_S said:

If someone claims a find after a string of DNFs, and you don't recognize them as a liar, do you go look for that cache despite the DNFs and the lack of indication of owner maintenance?

Possibly; it depends on the log. Some people write convincing logs, even if they haven't found the cache.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, CAVinoGal said:

The throwdowner's "fake find" gave several subsequent finders a sub par experience

I heard of one CO deleting every log on the throw down. I think it was over a hundred logs, so that throw down, which was really a DNF, certainly affected a lot of people. Apparently when the CO checked, the original cache was still in its hidey spot and not missing. I found the correct cache (or I hope I did :unsure:) and it was very well hidden. Anyway, my log has not been deleted (yet). I thought that was hard on those who didn't know it was a throw down. The log of the person who made the throw down should have been deleted though.

  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
Quote

In what way, exactly, have you been affected by someone falsely claiming a find on a cache?

Quote

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?

Quote

If a fake log appears in the midst of other found logs, as many of them do, there's no effect whatsoever - other than someone else claimed a find they didn't earn. How does that affect you?

 

Sorry, but this is starting to smell like the "No true Scotsman" fallacy. Someone complains, and you dismiss their complaint by narrowing the scope of the question. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Edited by niraD
formatting
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment

It probably shouldn't affect me but on some level it is rather annoying. Example: I'm doing a challenge and 3 trustworthy cachers marked DNFs on a relatively easy to find cache, so I put it on watch. Then suddenly it's receiving all kinds of found logs mentioning a Munzee code and specifically no mention of a container or log. I still need to go actually look for it of course but not as excited about it and completing the challenge remains out of reach.

Link to comment

I had an experience today, which somehow reminded me of this thread.

 

One cache in a trial of 30 was missing - I found the "camo" (it was obviously the right one, because it was shown in the spoiler pic), but it was empty. No container, let alone a log book, in sight. So I prepared a draft to log DNF+NM. At home, when actually writing my logs, I noticed that a finder more than 2 weeks ago has added a photo of the empty camo to his find(!) log. After that, the cache had about 15 find log, with only 1 or 2 even mentioning that the container is missing. No DNF or NM had been logged at all, and all the find logs in the last 2 weeks were kind of fake logs.

 

So, a single fake find may not affect my caching experience too much, if at all. However, many fake finds in a row, with no "honest" DNF in between may have affected it today. As I said, it's a trail, and it gets a lot of logs. So I could imagine that the CO doesn't read find logs, but watches out for problems (i.e. DNF/NM). Given the owner's maintenance record on the series, there is a fair chance, that if at least some cachers had logged DNF instead of fake finds. the cache might have been replaced by now.

  • Upvote 3
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
9 hours ago, CAVinoGal said:

A throwdown is, in my mind, a false find log - couldn't find it, placed a container and claimed a find...so when YOU find that throwdown, you are not finding what the CO intended and it's then NOT a challenge between you and the CO's hiding ability at all.  And as far as affecting MY cache experience...I can't count the number of times hubby and I are searching and we each find a container.  Sometimes it's obvious which is the original, sometimes not.  It can cause confusion, and frustration.

 

Yes, throwdowns are not only a fake find log, they perpetuate that fakeness into subsequent logs. As a matter of principle, I won't knowingly log a find on a throwdown even if I've signed its log because I haven't completed the task the CO set, namely to get my signature onto his or her log.

 

There's a T5 cache not far from home, placed in 2012 by a CO who's no longer active, which I DNFed in 2015. Mine was the first DNF after what appears to be a dozen or so legitimate finds, and was followed by another DNF confirming my suspicion that the cache had gone missing, but then the next seeker dropped a throwdown and claimed a find. The next eight find logs were on that throwdown until it went missing and another DNF was logged. So what happened? The next cacher also couldn't find it so they dropped Throwdown Mk II and logged a find, which has now had three more finds. Sheeze, this is now the woodsman's axe with three new heads and two new handles. If anyone ever does the right thing and logs an NA when the current throwdown goes missing instead of dropping yet another throwdown, and the abandoned listing is rightly archived, I'd consider placing a new cache there myself as it's an interesting spot to visit, but until then it's on my ignore list.

Edited by barefootjeff
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

There's a T5 cache not far from home, placed in 2012 by a CO who's no longer active, which I DNFed in 2015. Mine was the first DNF after what appears to be a dozen or so legitimate finds, and was followed by another DNF confirming my suspicion that the cache had gone missing, but then the next seeker dropped a throwdown and claimed a find and the next eight find logs were on that throwdown until it went missing and another DNF was logged. So what happened? The next cacher also couldn't find it so they dropped Throwdown Mk II and logged a find, which has now had three more finds. Sheeze, this is now the woodsman's axe with three new heads and two new handles. If anyone ever does the right thing and logs an NA when the current throwdown goes missing instead of dropping yet another throwdown, and the abandoned listing is rightly archived, I'd consider placing a new cache there myself as it's an interesting spot to visit, but until then it's on my ignore list.

This forum really needs a "Sad" response. :sad:

  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
10 hours ago, Ed_S said:

What about cache owners who deliberately use inaccurate GPS readings in their cache pages? When I lived in Ohio, there were at least two in my caching area who would purposefully use coordinates that would bring you near, but not too near, the cache. They'd bump up the difficulty points, as if that offset their inaccurate coordinates. There are all sorts of things people looking for caches have to deal with. You either learn to deal with them, and learn which cachers can be believed, or you'll quit in frustration. 

 

Forget about the widely-held assumption that a fake log is only found after a string of DNFs. Right smack in the middle of a bunch of found logs, how does a fake found log interfere with your caching day? The cache is there, others before and after have found it, but the cheater logged it from his La-Z-Boy. I'd be willing to bet that happens much more often than the cheater who claims a find at a cache that isn't there any more.

 

 

BZZZT... off topic! Talking about cache owners. Shame, shame!

 

To answer your question: COs with deliberately soft coordinates are deliberately breaking the guidelines, which state that the coords should be accurate (as accurate as possible).
 

Quote

Forget about the widely-held assumption that a fake log is only found after a string of DNFs. Right smack in the middle of a bunch of found logs, how does a fake found log interfere with your caching day?

You're moving the goalposts. No fair changing the question when you don't like the answers you're getting.

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 3
  • Love 1
Link to comment
2 hours ago, baer2006 said:

I had an experience today, which somehow reminded me of this thread...

 

Similar I guess, I wasted a good part of the day looking for a nano in a pine, and it turned out it was only the cap and wire tied to the tree.

Numerous people "found it", with no NMs, and no mention it's "just a cap", if they found it at all...

If it was logged that it was now a piece of carp, I wouldn't have gone there.

I started with this one, gonna be a long day with many caches in a woods trail, and was hesitant of caches here now because of this one hider. 

I NA it, and the CO in a huff archived the rest without picking any up.  The next day I removed the "cap", but didn't look for the others (of his).

The second cache, different CO, was a broken gadget cache that no one logged a NM on either...  

  • Helpful 2
Link to comment
22 hours ago, CAVinoGal said:

 

A throwdown is, in my mind, a false find log - couldn't find it, placed a container and claimed a find...so when YOU find that throwdown, you are not finding what the CO intended and it's then NOT a challenge between you and the CO's hiding ability at all.  And as far as affecting MY cache experience...I can't count the number of times hubby and I are searching and we each find a container.  Sometimes it's obvious which is the original, sometimes not.  It can cause confusion, and frustration.

 

I agree - throwdowns are cheating, and worse than a fake found log, because they DO affect subsequent cachers' experience. Throwdowns are not, however, the subject of this thread.

 

  • Funny 3
Link to comment
22 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

I have come upon that when I was newish to geocaching and did nothing about it. Now if I do find that cache and the coordinates are well off, presuming it isn't a puzzle cache, I will give the correct coordinates in my log and possibly make a NM and say coordinates need correction. Coordinates for a traditional cache should be correct.

 

I haven't encountered this sort of thing in at least the past couple of years, but in the past I've heard of approvers contacting the cache owner and telling them to correct their coordinates, after notes from cache finders asked them to make the corrections. 

 

22 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

 

Possibly; it depends on the log. Some people write convincing logs, even if they haven't found the cache.

 

  • Funny 2
Link to comment
22 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

I heard of one CO deleting every log on the throw down. I think it was over a hundred logs, so that throw down, which was really a DNF, certainly affected a lot of people. Apparently when the CO checked, the original cache was still in its hidey spot and not missing. I found the correct cache (or I hope I did :unsure:) and it was very well hidden. Anyway, my log has not been deleted (yet). I thought that was hard on those who didn't know it was a throw down. The log of the person who made the throw down should have been deleted though.

 

Throwdowns are worse than fake found logs, because when you find the throwdown, you presume you've found the cache, so you stop looking for it.

 

  • Funny 2
Link to comment
20 hours ago, niraD said:

 

Sorry, but this is starting to smell like the "No true Scotsman" fallacy. Someone complains, and you dismiss their complaint by narrowing the scope of the question. Lather, rinse, repeat.

 

I'm trying to hold this thread to the original topic. If you don't like it, why are you reading it? 

 

  • Funny 3
Link to comment
15 hours ago, baer2006 said:

I had an experience today, which somehow reminded me of this thread.

 

[deletion]

 

So, a single fake find may not affect my caching experience too much, if at all. However, many fake finds in a row, with no "honest" DNF in between may have affected it today. As I said, it's a trail, and it gets a lot of logs. So I could imagine that the CO doesn't read find logs, but watches out for problems (i.e. DNF/NM). Given the owner's maintenance record on the series, there is a fair chance, that if at least some cachers had logged DNF instead of fake finds. the cache might have been replaced by now.

True, a whole string of fake found logs can do that. But isn't that a commentary on the honesty, or (I'll be charitable) the inexperience of some cachers? 

 

I also recognize that a lot of people create a "shell" log for power trail caches, using the same log over and over for all 30 (or however many) logs. They have to make an effort to remember which cache was defective. Some don't.

 

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

BZZZT... off topic! Talking about cache owners. Shame, shame!

 

To answer your question: COs with deliberately soft coordinates are deliberately breaking the guidelines, which state that the coords should be accurate (as accurate as possible).
 

You're moving the goalposts. No fair changing the question when you don't like the answers you're getting.

 

I disagree - I'm not moving the goalposts, I'm trying to rephrase my arguments so that my fellow arguers might understand what I'm saying.

 

Also, the topic at hand is whether a fake found log can have an effect on someone's caching trip, not critiquing other posts. So, razzberries!! 

 

  • Funny 3
Link to comment
14 hours ago, Ed_S said:

I'm trying to hold this thread to the original topic.

On a more serious note, the more studious forum participants might notice the "if you're going caching, and one of the caches you plan on searching for" qualification you added in your original post. But when folk return to the thread and remind themselves of what it's about, they'll re-read the "How have fake find logs affected your caching experience?" heading at the top of the page.

 

Good luck enforcing your (ever more) restricted view of what this thread should be discussing.

Edited by niraD
typo
  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment

 

On reading logs on one of my caches I see a DNF. As I'll be in the vicinity in the next day or two I make a mental note to check on it.

Next day a "Found It" is logged so I think to myself it's not missing after all and go about my normal business.

A couple of days later there are two more DNFs. I think "Hmm, that's odd". 

I check on cache and it is indeed missing. I check other caches and find the person who logged the "Found It" has also logged other caches as found but has not signed logs - fake logger eh?

So if the fake logger had not logged as found the cache I was going to check on, I would have been able to replace the missing cache and prevented the next two cachers from having to log DNFs. As the cache is part of series with a bonus cache they would have had to make a return visit to find the replacement to get the clue for the bonus hence wasted time and expense for them and possible disappointment due to the area being a popular holiday spot and these cachers may not be able to return to complete the series. 

Result is the fake logger has wasted my time and that of two other cachers.  So, yes, a fake logger has affected my, as CO, and others', as seekers, caching experience. Certainly as per  thread topic.

  • Upvote 4
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
18 hours ago, The Jester said:

It does feel like you redefining what "fake log" you want to talk about:

 

A - fake find when dropping a throwdown?

B - fake find after series of DNFs?

C - fake find amongst real find logs?

D - all of the above?

 

 

So let me get this straight - I harp on the same thing over and over, and I'm criticized for it. I change up my argument with different examples, and I'm criticized for it. I mention things in part of a reply to a specific post, and I'm criticized for it. 

 

Perhaps some soul searching with regard to your (the royal "you" not just you personally) motives is in order.

 

 

  • Funny 2
Link to comment
18 hours ago, niraD said:

 

Good luck enforcing your (ever more) restricted view of what this thread should be discussing.

I started the thread, so I think I'm qualified to say what its topic is. Have I remained consistent? How many times have I said "from the standpoint of the finder, ..." only to have multiple replies insisting that the cache owner should do this or that? 

 

I love how one "negative Nellie" picks an out-of-context point and quibbles over it, and a half dozen others jump on the same point. 

 

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

 

On reading logs on one of my caches I see a DNF. As I'll be in the vicinity in the next day or two I make a mental note to check on it.

Next day a "Found It" is logged so I think to myself it's not missing after all and go about my normal business.

A couple of days later there are two more DNFs. I think "Hmm, that's odd". 

I check on cache and it is indeed missing. I check other caches and find the person who logged the "Found It" has also logged other caches as found but has not signed logs - fake logger eh?

So if the fake logger had not logged as found the cache I was going to check on, I would have been able to replace the missing cache and prevented the next two cachers from having to log DNFs. As the cache is part of series with a bonus cache they would have had to make a return visit to find the replacement to get the clue for the bonus hence wasted time and expense for them and possible disappointment due to the area being a popular holiday spot and these cachers may not be able to return to complete the series. 

Result is the fake logger has wasted my time and that of two other cachers.  So, yes, a fake logger has affected my, as CO, and others', as seekers, caching experience. Certainly as per  thread topic.

I have to observe that your experience and your comments are from the standpoint of the cache owner, not the finder. I was remiss in not titling this thread accurately, but there have been several accusations of my supposed "narrowing" of the topic, so I don't dare edit it or modify it.

 

Let me ask you, though, if the cache had been there but the seekers had been unable to find it, what would have changed for the seekers? Would their coming away with a DNF and with the cache actually there been less of a waste of time? Further, do you KNOW they considered it a waste of time, or are you merely projecting your own thoughts on them? 

 

  • Funny 2
Link to comment
On 7/10/2021 at 10:45 AM, niraD said:

Sorry, but this is starting to smell like the "No true Scotsman" fallacy. Someone complains, and you dismiss their complaint by narrowing the scope of the question. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Well, I'm not really seeing that. I admit, it's hard to read the OP's combative responses, but I think he's making valid points about the few examples being raised being less than convincing because of other possible scenarios which would look identical to the seeker without involving any incorrect logs. As I read these examples, they tend to clump in 2 classes. The first is fake finds that are clearly an anomalies, so anyone seeing it would discount it. The other class is fake finds followed by a missing cache, and I don't really don't understand how the person reporting the "impact" determined the fake find was fake. The other example we've seen is a throwdown where the real problem that impacted people was the throwdown, not the fake find.

 

It doesn't help that many of the examples are imagining impacts, including a few that show successful searches that involved no fake logs, but "it could have happened! I claim that's one reason the discussion has slipped over from imaginary impacts to imaginary solutions involving COs deleting logs when the OP wants to talk about whether the incorrect logs are a problem to begin with, not how the problem can be solved.

 

Admittedly, the OP tends to reject examples instead of discussing the degree the fake log really did impact the poster in light of other events we all accept as part of geocaching which could easily lead to exactly the same experience. That makes it hard to follow the discussion, but it's more of a rhetorical failure than a logical fallacy.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
21 hours ago, niraD said:

Good luck enforcing your (ever more) restricted view of what this thread should be discussing.

I've resigned myself to just reacting to comments :lol:

 

I think the point here is that the request was to hear about how fake finds have affected people's finding experience. Sure, other aspects have been mentioned as well, primarily how it affects cache owners' experiences. But there have been plenty of examples of how people have been affected by false find logs.  Those examples seem to either get dismissed, or downplayed in a kind of "blame the victim" way (as in, if you thought this way you wouldn't have been affected the same).

I suppose one can ask - what is the ultimate goal of the thread? Clearly, finders are affected by false finds - whoever may be at fault. So, is it productive to share those examples if it seems like you'll be made to feel bad for thinking that way? Or are we attempting to condone not posting fake logs because people are and have been affected - whether finders or cache owners?

 

 

1 hour ago, dprovan said:

I admit, it's hard to read the OP's combative responses...

(and part of me is apprehensive about commenting again instead of just reacting to responses :P)

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

I have to observe that your experience and your comments are from the standpoint of the cache owner, not the finder. I was remiss in not titling this thread accurately, but there have been several accusations of my supposed "narrowing" of the topic, so I don't dare edit it or modify it.

 

Let me ask you, though, if the cache had been there but the seekers had been unable to find it, what would have changed for the seekers? Would their coming away with a DNF and with the cache actually there been less of a waste of time? Further, do you KNOW they considered it a waste of time, or are you merely projecting your own thoughts on them? 

 

Can't accept any example that does not match your perception, eh? So you're  resorting to hypothetical, "if the cache had been there but the seekers had been unable to find it" - irrelevant, the cache wasn't there but since you asked, if the fake found it had not been logged I would have replaced the cache therefore saving the next seekers from logging a DNF (it was a low D). 

Also, if those cachers are like me, where if I have a DNF I place a watch on it, they would see my OM and may well have been PO'd that some armchair logger had spoiled their experience of possibly grabbing the bonus(63% fav'd) - I would've.

 

Link to comment
17 hours ago, colleda said:

Can't accept any example that does not match your perception, eh? So you're  resorting to hypothetical, "if the cache had been there but the seekers had been unable to find it" - irrelevant, the cache wasn't there but since you asked, if the fake found it had not been logged I would have replaced the cache therefore saving the next seekers from logging a DNF (it was a low D). 

 

What's irrelevant is that (boy, I'm getting tired of saying this) we aren't talking about the cache owner and the actions YOU THINK he should take. You're also sure those couple of cachers would have found it, because it's a low D. Ever have to DNF a 1/1 that others found easily? I have, and so has every other cacher I know. Sometimes you just don't see what's in front of you. It happens to all of us. 

 

17 hours ago, colleda said:

Also, if those cachers are like me, where if I have a DNF I place a watch on it, they would see my OM and may well have been PO'd that some armchair logger had spoiled their experience of possibly grabbing the bonus(63% fav'd) - I would've.

 

 

OMG - "If those cachers are like me" - there you go telling others how they have to cache. 

  • Funny 2
Link to comment
33 minutes ago, Ed_S said:

 

OMG - "If those cachers are like me" - there you go telling others how they have to cache. 

And you're not trying to tell us that your opinion/way of caching is the "proper" way to look at things?  Kettle meet black, black meet kettle. 

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

 

What's irrelevant is that (boy, I'm getting tired of saying this) we aren't talking about the cache owner and the actions YOU THINK he should take. You're also sure those couple of cachers would have found it, because it's a low D. Ever have to DNF a 1/1 that others found easily? I have, and so has every other cacher I know. Sometimes you just don't see what's in front of you. It happens to all of us. 

 

 

OMG - "If those cachers are like me" - there you go telling others how they have to cache. 

"we aren't talking about the cache owner"  Are not cache owners also cachers? Thread title = "Your caching experience" does gives not indication that we are talking about seekers only?

 

You're grasping at straws. "OMG - "If those cachers are like me" - there you go telling others how they have to cache." This is not telling others how to cache but merely making a comparison on caching style. Do you have a comprehension problem, seems so. Sheesh.

 

Back to hypotheticals again. "You're also sure those couple of cachers would have found it, because it's a low D". If the fake found wasn't there, and if I had not checked after the first DNF, there would have been three DNFs in a row (from experienced cachers). Is that not enough indication? What are the odds, eh?

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
22 hours ago, The Jester said:

And you're not trying to tell us that your opinion/way of caching is the "proper" way to look at things?  Kettle meet black, black meet kettle. 

Examples, please?

 

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

One example:  A statement of opinion as hard fact.

Without all the "what-ifs" and contrived scenarios,  a cacher spending some time finding caches is not affected by one fake found log. The cacher is still going caching, and will either elect to search for the cache based on the one (fake) found log,  or he will note the DNFs and decide to look or not look for it. If he decides to look for the cache, he will spend time searching for it, whether it's there or not. Prove me wrong.

 

  • Funny 2
Link to comment
On 7/15/2021 at 10:43 AM, Ed_S said:

Without all the "what-ifs" and contrived scenarios,  a cacher spending some time finding caches is not affected by one fake found log. The cacher is still going caching, and will either elect to search for the cache based on the one (fake) found log,  or he will note the DNFs and decide to look or not look for it. If he decides to look for the cache, he will spend time searching for it, whether it's there or not. Prove me wrong.

 

 

I may concede that if there's exactly one fake "TFTC" log among many logs, I might not be able to tell before I go hunt a cache.  If that's the extent of the Topic, sure.  OK.  If it's found by all without issue, the one fake log doesn't affect my decision to hunt a cache.

 

But that's unrealistic, because the fake logs don't stop at "1" on a cache that develops a fake log.  There's no such limit.  I have to prove it while it's at "1" and before another one occurs?

 

As an example, there's a cache that had a fake log, but has since developed four more fake logs.  While it stood at ONE fake Found It log, it affected me, at which point it proved you wrong.  Based on that log alone, I could have made a decision on whether to search for it.  I'm assured it's there (due to it being a Found log and it stands), I cannot now be FTF (it's a remote place that I originally intended to go hunt and see just what makes it so tough for veteran cachers).  BUT I didn't in fact know that the log is real -- it's among many prank DNFs and notes, it specifically says PROVE ME WRONG, "Prove I didn't [find it]".  AND when I ask veteran cachers who've supposedly been there (even a Reviewer), they laugh, it's the most hilarious in-joke to them (that's super frustrating).  Plus, some of the logs make me never want to participate, and especially, never want to associate with those persons (they act as if they have serious mental issues). There are more problems beyond just "one fake log" when caches develop fake logs. Still, fake logs affected my decision. 

 

Here's the proof, a cache in point:

https://coord.info/GC18E84

 

FIVE fake Found It Logs around 2014.  Yet 2019, the Cache Owner still said nobody has found it.  From at least the range of 2014 to 2019, those fake logs affected me, they made it seem findable by determined persons, by power of determination.  So I might have made a trip there in 2014 based on the assurance that it is there, and the coolest part is, someone like me may find it although veterans seem to be overlooking it.  If the logs are all pranks, all joking around, it's a waste of time to go there. 

 

It's just an example of a listed cache where fake logs affected my hunt decisions.  Many such caches and logs have existed since the beginning of Geocaching, but the cache tends to go away due to the tomfoolery.  That affects Geocachers' cache hunts.  Prove me wrong.

 

Edited by kunarion
  • Upvote 3
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment

I've already documented my experience with a fake log on a single cache on a single day. Your OP limited caching to a single day. Yet, in a different follow-on post, you changed to caching experience. Those are not the same. Experience includes the planning process, and can span multiple days. The underlying question not asked is why did I decide to go after a crappy park n' grab. At the time, I was trying to get enough caches to qualify for a 50 day streak challenge cache. My geocaching on that day wasn't a leisurely day of caching, it was a chore that needed to be done in preparation for a future day of caching.

 

It was a work day, and I had an evening commitment. This meant that I had limited time to go and find a cache, about 15 minutes. For planning, the cache location had to be within a small area between work and home. I needed a quick park 'n grab, with a high likelihood that the cache was still there. This cache met those requirements. I went to GZ because the fake log was a part of why I decided to search for this cache.

 

There are multiple impacts. If we limit this to a single day, and and ignore planning and overall geocaching experience, the impact was that my chore was going to take at least twice as long as I had budgeted. Looking at my overall geocaching experience, the impact was two-fold. I decided to ignore all streak challenges, and I changed my planning to discount caches placed by this CO.

 

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
7 hours ago, Ed_S said:

Without all the "what-ifs" and contrived scenarios,  a cacher spending some time finding caches is not affected by one fake found log. The cacher is still going caching, and will either elect to search for the cache based on the one (fake) found log,  or he will note the DNFs and decide to look or not look for it. If he decides to look for the cache, he will spend time searching for it, whether it's there or not. Prove me wrong.

 

 

You seem to have a rather simplistic view of what finding a cache entails but looking at your statistics I can see why, as the great bulk of your finds are low D/T traditionals. Sure, on a 1.5/1.5 trad in the middle of suburbia, one fake log isn't going to have much impact, even if it results in a DNF, but it's a different story once you get into the T4 and higher caches. There are a whole lot more decisions to make beyond just electing to search or not, things like how much time to allow (will the sun set before I can get back to safety?), equipment and clothing required, possible routes to take, hazards to avoid and so forth, and the repercussions of making a wrong decision can be a lot worse than just a DNF. Furthermore, there are unlikely to be more than a handful of past logs unless the cache has been there for a very long time and, particularly for someone of my age and with my physical limitations, those past logs are pretty much required reading. As I've said before in this thread but you keep on ignoring, I rely on those logs being honest. A fake log on a T5 cache saying they grabbed it with the family while driving past on the way to Sydney (that's a real example) paints a very misleading picture of what's really required to get to that cache.
 

As my former boss (now sadly passed away) was fond of saying, "It's not the things you don't know that get you into trouble, it's the things you think you know that aren't true."

  • Upvote 3
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
9 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

"It's not the things you don't know that get you into trouble, it's the things you think you know that aren't true."

What a fitting statement to that discussion!

 

I can't say that fake logs often affected my experience. Simply because (at least on those caches I like to hunt) those are extremely rare.

But for me the only explanation to have such a rigorous stance that fake logs never ever can affect my experience as a searcher must come from a complete negligence/inobservance of all logs. That's hard for me to comprehend since logs are an important part for me to get a complete picture of a cache and if I will enjoy looking for it.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
21 hours ago, GeoTrekker26 said:


You have it backwards: it’s your responsibility to prove your opinion is factual. 

Nope. I made a statement, and have been told "that's wrong." It's incumbent upon the accuser to provide the proof.

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 3
Link to comment
3 hours ago, Ed_S said:

Nope. I made a statement, and have been told "that's wrong." It's incumbent upon the accuser to provide the proof.

 

That’s another of your “my way” arguments that isn’t true. It is always up to the person proposing an idea to provide supporting facts. The onus is never on the critic to PROVE the initial argument wrong.  
 

I believe the rings of Saturn are evidence of a dystopian planet. Prove me wrong. 
 

I believe 98% of the messages posted to the forums are posted by AI bots using pseudonyms. Prove me wrong. 
 

I believe you are a troll. Prove me wrong. 
 

I believe Keystone is a dog. Prove me wrong. 
 

I believe this thread has outlived its usefulness.  No proof needed. 

  • Upvote 3
  • Funny 3
  • Surprised 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
4 hours ago, Lynx Humble said:

Yeah this topic should be locked the OP doesn't care about our arguments against his initial statements.

Well, I supposed it should be locked because it's not going anywhere, but I really haven't seen any interesting counter arguments. The basic logical problem is this: there is literally no difference between a fake find log after a cache goes missing and a true find log after which the cache goes missing. People are talking as if fake logs are as obvious as day, but in most of these "counter examples", I don't even see enough evidence to convince me that the "fake find" that "ruined" the caching trip was actually fake and not just a true find before the cache went missing.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
On 7/15/2021 at 7:43 AM, Ed_S said:

Without all the "what-ifs" and contrived scenarios,  a cacher spending some time finding caches is not affected by one fake found log. The cacher is still going caching, and will either elect to search for the cache based on the one (fake) found log,  or he will note the DNFs and decide to look or not look for it. If he decides to look for the cache, he will spend time searching for it, whether it's there or not. Prove me wrong.

 

How about you play by the same rules - no "what-ifs" or contrived scenarios (i.e.. 'one fake found log after a long series of DNF's') - use only concrete examples of real caches.  Most of the quote above is 'contrived scenarios'.

 

I know how DNf's sometimes affect my feelings for the whole day.  I've had one DNF throw a pall over the whole day of mostly successful caching.  So a fake find log (to me saying 'it's here come find it') causing me to try to clear a previous DNF, resulting in another DNF can have a very negative impact on my feelings for the the day.  So your spouting the 'big lie' (fake finds don't have an effect on cache finders) over and over isn't going to change my feelings, thereby 'proving' you wrong.

 

I've been the guy that posted a found log after a series of DNF's, so I know it happens.  One of my favorite FTF's was after the whole local FTF crowd posted DNF's on a new cache, I had to try it and within a couple of minutes at GZ spotted the cache (and I know the CO hadn't been late in placing it before publishing, as one of the FTF crowd was still there searching).  I've done it recently on a couple of Rest Area caches - well, a short series of DNF's (2-3 - how many is a series in your contrived scenario?).  So I know it's possible and it doesn't automatically raise a red flag saying 'this might be a fake find log'.

  • Helpful 2
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...