Jump to content

How have fake find logs affected your caching experience?


Ed_S
Followers 6

Recommended Posts

20 hours ago, GeoTrekker26 said:

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. 

 

First,  you're wrong about Keystone. I know him - he started caching about when I did, and in the same general area. Back then, we all knew each other, because there weren't very many of us. I can assure you, he's not a dog.

 

Now, as for the rest of it, see my following post.

 

  • Funny 3
Link to comment

After reading all the replies I've gotten to this topic, I've come to the realization that some people cache for a different reason than I do. I always knew people have different reasons for caching, of course - for some, it's all about the numbers, while for others, such as myself, it's about the experience. The hike and/or the search for a quality cache. 

 

I've realized there are people who seek caches so they can check up on others. They consider themselves the Cache Police - and they consider it a crime to cache in ways they don't approve of. "Live and let live" is not their way. Violating the rules, no matter how minor the infraction, is intolerable to them. They don't know the history of caching, so "the way it used to be" is of no interest to them.

 

You all can have your last word, if you want, but I think this thread has gone beyond any useful purpose. Maybe I'll reply further, maybe I won't.

 

  • Funny 3
  • Surprised 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
5 hours ago, The Jester said:

 

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. 

 

Dude, let it go. Unclench a little. Caching is an amusing pastime. It's not a stain upon your honor if you don't find a cache someone else says they found. And if you didn't actually find the cache, you don't know if their name is in the log or not, do you?

 

 

  • Funny 2
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
54 minutes ago, Ed_S said:

 

First,  you're wrong about Keystone. I know him - he started caching about when I did, and in the same general area. Back then, we all knew each other, because there weren't very many of us. I can assure you, he's not a dog.

 

Woof!  I would have replied to this thread earlier, but I was busy licking myself.

  • Funny 7
  • Love 1
Link to comment
24 minutes ago, Keystone said:

Woof!  I would have replied to this thread earlier, but I was busy licking myself.

 

I just want to assure everyone that I did not have Keystone (or any of the other volunteer reviewers) in mind when I posted the following:

 

On 7/11/2021 at 3:45 PM, niraD said:

Look away. I triple-dog dare you!

tenor.gif?itemid=12704217

 

Link to comment
22 hours ago, GeoTrekker26 said:

I believe Keystone is a dog. Prove me wrong. 
 

 

Just to clarify in case anyone missed the reference, when discussing subjective reviewer issues Keystone used to use the phrase "some reviewers are dogs."  Since he was busy licking himself I think he realized I was throwing him a bone. :antenna:

 

  • Funny 2
Link to comment
11 hours ago, Ed_S said:

 

Dude, let it go. Unclench a little. Caching is an amusing pastime. It's not a stain upon your honor if you don't find a cache someone else says they found. And if you didn't actually find the cache, you don't know if their name is in the log or not, do you?

 

 

Sorry, you can't tell me that my feelings are wrong, it's just how I'm wired.  Just like you've been complaining people are telling you that you're wrong when you can so clearly see that you're not.  I was just hoping that you'd back off the hard line that fake logs never affect the cache finder and admit that some cache finders are affected by them.  But go on with your life, believing your opinion is world wide truth, and I'll go on with mine where some negative things affect me more than they "should", I've learned to live with it.

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

I've realized there are people who seek caches so they can check up on others. They consider themselves the Cache Police - and they consider it a crime to cache in ways they don't approve of. "Live and let live" is not their way. Violating the rules, no matter how minor the infraction, is intolerable to them. They don't know the history of caching, so "the way it used to be" is of no interest to them.

 

I always thought finding the cache and signing the logbook was a pretty fundamental rule of the game:

 

Quote

Find a cache and sign the logbook

Respect the environment and keep the cache area intact. Also, make sure to be stealthy when muggles are around.

  1. Find the cache.
  2. Sign the logbook.
  3. Trade SWAG or trackables.
  4. Put the cache back exactly as you found it.

 

And I'm pretty sure that was the way it used to be too.

  • Upvote 3
  • Helpful 2
  • Love 1
Link to comment
On 6/28/2021 at 1:47 AM, Ed_S said:

How, as someone planning to search for the cache, are you affected?

 

My son has three challenge caches, based on finding caches which have not been found for at least 6 months. 

 

If I am planning a trip hoping to find such a cache  then a false find log will prevent me from including the cache in my plans.

 

Can a single false find log affect me?

 

Yes.  QED.

  • Upvote 4
  • Helpful 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
On 7/11/2021 at 1:20 AM, Goldenwattle said:

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 do the same. Coordinates for multis/puzzles should be correct too - I'll post offsets for those when they are a bit far out too....

  • Upvote 2
  • Love 1
Link to comment

I've done substantial hikes to caches that were found shortly before. Only to find out the cache was missing. This annoys me. It's not that I need to find every cache, but if I do a big detour then it's annoying to not know it's missing.

  • Upvote 4
  • Helpful 2
Link to comment
12 hours ago, The Jester said:

Sorry, you can't tell me that my feelings are wrong, it's just how I'm wired.  Just like you've been complaining people are telling you that you're wrong when you can so clearly see that you're not.  I was just hoping that you'd back off the hard line that fake logs never affect the cache finder and admit that some cache finders are affected by them.  But go on with your life, believing your opinion is world wide truth, and I'll go on with mine where some negative things affect me more than they "should", I've learned to live with it.

 

You're wired like you're wired. I get it. Will you agree that most people aren't wired like that?

 

Actually, a way one single fake found log CAN affect anyone's day is when a new cache is placed by a new cacher. Nobody has ever found the cache, and nobody knows how the hider does things - are the coords accurate? Does he favor certain methods or camouflage? You get the idea. So if the cache is not there, or the coords are wildly off and the first log is "Easy find, coords right on!" or similar, a cacher might spend more time than he ordinarily would, in the belief that the cache is there where it's supposed to be.

 

But all the instances of a fake log affecting a cacher's entire day require a specific set of circumstances. And, if someone spends 2 hours looking for one cache, that's their choice, and they can't blame anyone but themselves for spending 2 hours on a cache and not coming up with the find. 

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 3
Link to comment
On 7/10/2021 at 11:20 AM, Goldenwattle said:

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.

 

We're seeing this more and more for some odd reason.  The latest is a "boy scout" cache, this one 70+ feet off, and on the other side of a creek.

All logs are now saying "went by so n so's coordinates", and still no action from the "CO", if there was someone doing maintenance at all.

Over a year old, and still no NM yet.     Sheesh...   I put it on my "needs an NM" list...

  • Upvote 1
  • Surprised 1
Link to comment
On 7/16/2021 at 9:14 PM, dprovan said:

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.

 

True, in that strict example.

The there is a difference in effect, because the logs serve a purpose: They are intended to be trustworthy records of an actual event. That is, as of said date (and the time, which is essentially inferred) the geocache was in findable condition and has been properly found/signed/completed. As of that moment, the cache was findable. That's all it means. Like you said, a Find log doesn't mean the cache is there and you will find it. But it implies that it was findable as of then.

 

Now for our context, searching for it after the fact there are two possible implications as you describe - the cache was found and has gone missing, or the cache was not found and is still missing. BUT, when deciding whether to make that search, we infer meaning from past find logs. If we indeed trust what the logs imply, then absolutely a find log has a net positive effect on our judgment as to whether the cache is still there to be found. Yes, there's always a risk it may not be, if it's gone missing after the last find, and our ability to find the cache wasn't affected directly by the find log. BUT a (false) find positively affects our understanding of the potential current status of the cache, just as a DNF negatively affects our understanding of the potential current status of the cache (did they just not find it or is it missing?)

 

The weight with which we weigh that judgment can differ from person to person. But the "Found it" log (as every log) has a meaning. If we choose to ignore that, we admit that the log history has absolutely no bearing on anything relevant towards your cache-finding experience, because we assume all of them are irrelevant. If you choose to cache like that, great, so be it, but that isn't the intent of the log history. It's a public facing record of events meant to describe the geocache's actual - actual - history. And so it's perfectly reasonable to read past logs with that in mind --

 

And that means Find logs (whether true or not) affect a geocacher's understanding, opinion, and decisions about whether to spend effort finding that particular geocache.

And as demonstrated in this and other threads, we have anecdotal evidence, first hand testimonies, that false finds do affects geocachers' experiences (as well as the ability for the cache owners to maintain their caches).

 

Edited by thebruce0
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
9 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

 

We're seeing this more and more for some odd reason.  The latest is a "boy scout" cache, this one 70+ feet off, and on the other side of a creek.

All logs are now saying "went by so n so's coordinates", and still no action from the "CO", if there was someone doing maintenance at all.

Over a year old, and still no NM yet.     Sheesh...   I put it on my "needs an NM" list...

I find boy scout caches tend to be place and forget caches.

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
12 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

I find boy scout caches tend to be place and forget caches.

FWIW, if I suspect a cache has been "placed and forgotten" because of coordinates not being updated and so on, I look at the CO's profile to see when the last time they logged in was. Caches will continue along on "autopilot" until there's a problem. I DNF'd a puzzle cache earlier this year that was last found in 2018. The checker-bot said the coords were right, but the cache was clearly not there. There just weren't many places to hide one, and the rating was low. I checked, and the CO hadn't been around since 2009. I emailed the CO with no response, emailed the approver, then other area approvers, and learned approvers around here don't answer emails. So I logged a NA, and someone temporarily shut it down pending owner action (of course there was none) and after 30 days archived it. 

 

  • Funny 1
  • Surprised 1
Link to comment
19 minutes ago, Ed_S said:

The checker-bot said the coords were right, but the cache was clearly not there.

I've had one of them where the checker was wrong. I suspect I worked out the correct coordinates, but the checker didn't match. So I fiddled with numbers until I got the checker to match. Went to GZ, no cache. Later I contacted the CO and he told me my coordinates were wrong. I told him they match the checker. He told me I shouldn't trust the checker.

  • Funny 3
  • Surprised 2
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Goldenwattle said:

 He told me I shouldn't trust the checker.

Wow - doesn't THAT open a big can of worms? If you can't trust the checker, why is it there? 

 

Link to comment
21 hours ago, thebruce0 said:
On 7/16/2021 at 6:14 PM, dprovan said:

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.

 

True, in that strict example.

The there is a difference in effect, because the logs serve a purpose: They are intended to be trustworthy records of an actual event.

Oh, sorry, let me restate that. I meant there's no difference from the point of view of the seeker. That's because the seeker literally can't tell which is which without additional information. I might be wrong, but I think most of the rest of your post is essentially saying fake finds are bad, and I agree 100% with that. In my opinion, the OP was making the point that seekers shouldn't really get upset about fake finds, and I'm claiming that's mainly because you really can't tell whether you've encountered one. In other words, if you get upset, then you'll get upset even when what you're actually experiencing isn't a fake find, it's a cache that went missing since the last find. If you tear your hair out wailing "fake find" when that's not what happened, you only have yourself to blame.

 

On 7/17/2021 at 7:15 PM, The Jester said:

Sorry, you can't tell me that my feelings are wrong, it's just how I'm wired.

I don't think the point is that your feelings are wrong, just that your observation is wrong. What happened to you is that you couldn't find a cache after a previous find was logged. You, yourself, are imagining that the previous find was invalid. Either you can't know that is a fact, or, if you do know that's a fact, the information you're using to prove that to yourself is precisely the information you had before you went to look for the cache, so you could have avoided the disappointment by thinking it over in advance instead of feeling bad about it after. I'm sorry you can't help yourself from inventing this grief for yourself, but I'm suggesting you reevaluate the situation in a way that might make you see that it's just another day of geocaching with successes and failures with many different causes. This specific class of failure isn't really different from the ones that don't ruin your day.

 

As I said above, that doesn't mean fake finds aren't bad and that we shouldn't complain about them and get them cleaned up. My point is only that when you encounter one -- or think you've encountered one -- you don't have to view the situation so negatively that it upsets you.

Link to comment

 

 

8 hours ago, niraD said:

200.gif

OK, then tell me, O Knower Of All Things, what do you call the person who approves new caches? AND, for extra credit, were you able to discern, with your mastery of the English Language, what I meant?

 

 

 

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

what do you call the person who approves new caches? 

 

Not sure if you're serious, since you've a 2001 start date, but this hobby doesn't have  anyone "approve" caches. 

If we did, there's at least one Reviewer we know of that would deny a cache type or two .  :)   They're published.  

  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
On 7/19/2021 at 12:01 PM, dprovan said:

the OP was making the point that seekers shouldn't really get upset about fake finds, and I'm claiming that's mainly because you really can't tell whether you've encountered one. In other words, if you get upset, then you'll get upset even when what you're actually experiencing isn't a fake find, it's a cache that went missing since the last find. If you tear your hair out wailing "fake find" when that's not what happened, you only have yourself to blame.

 

I'm not actually sure if we agree on something here. I think in one context.

To be more specific - examples have been provided where discovering that a log was a false find, which did affect one's decision to go find it, was in effect a negative one.  While yes, looking for a cache you learn later was actually missing, there's no way to know strictly speaking if the prior log was false or not: was it missing since the (legitimate) last find, or was the last find false?  In that context the legitimacy of the prior Find is irrelevant.

But the negative effect is when one makes a decision based on trusting the legitimacy of prior logs (whatever log type they may be). That is where false finds have the biggest impact. Additionally, examples were cited about how even the content of a false find can affect someone's experience in finding it or choosing to find it.

 

  • Funny 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment

Same as you.   If it's all about the smiley, a caching streak or some sort of challenge I can see how one would be "effected".    I pretty much know the solid cache owners in my area so If I'm involved in something like that I'll try and choose a cache I'm relatively confident will be there and in good shape.

 

I enjoy the find as much as the next person but it's not the primary reason I cache so false find logs, wet caches and missing travel bugs don't bother me all that much.     

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

If it's all about the smiley, a caching streak or some sort of challenge I can see how one would be "effected". 

Plenty of examples cited in this thread that aren't "all about the smiley" which have still been negatively affected by false logs.

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:
18 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Plenty of examples cited in this thread that aren't "all about the smiley" which have still been negatively affected by false logs.

Understood.   Doesn't change how false logs effect me. 

 

Yep, and if someone can enjoy this hobby and not be affected by false logs in any way, all power to ya! :antenna:

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

 

Not sure if you're serious, since you've a 2001 start date, but this hobby doesn't have  anyone "approve" caches. 

If we did, there's at least one Reviewer we know of that would deny a cache type or two .  :)   They're published.  

There was a time when they were called "approvers" - whether that was their official title or not. In many circles, the terms are still used interchangably. 

 

I would argue that they do more than just review - they do have the power to deny publication of caches that fail to meet their (sometimes arbitrary) criteria. 

 

 

Edited by Ed_S
Link to comment
17 minutes ago, Ed_S said:

In many circles, the terms are still used interchangably. 

Curious which circles (honestly). I've never heard them referred to as "approvers", since I began in 2009, and since participating in this forum and all over social media.

 

17 minutes ago, Ed_S said:

I would argue that they do more than just review - they do have the power to deny publication of caches that fail to meet their (sometimes arbitrary) criteria. 

Absolutely.

 

Edited by thebruce0
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

They were definitely referred to as "approvers" in the early days. That term went out of favor somewhere in the mid-aughts as HQ decided that "approver" was a loaded term. The community volunteers were not "approving" placements, they were reviewing them for adherence to the guidelines.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 4
Link to comment
On 7/18/2021 at 9:52 PM, lee737 said:

I do the same. Coordinates for multis/puzzles should be correct too - I'll post offsets for those when they are a bit far out too....

Yes, the final GZ should be correct too for them, but I'll not post the final coordinates for a puzzle or multi, as I would for a traditional. That's what I meant. I might say though, I found the final coordinates, say 20 metres out.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
8 hours ago, Moun10Bike said:

They were definitely referred to as "approvers" in the early days. That term went out of favor somewhere in the mid-aughts as HQ decided that "approver" was a loaded term. The community volunteers were not "approving" placements, they were reviewing them for adherence to the guidelines.

I'll add only that some volunteer reviewers have been rather insistent that they do not approve cache listings, that they only review them for compliance with the (current) guidelines, and that if they did have to approve cache listings, then a lot fewer cache listings would be published.

 

Oh, but that's another thread...

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
23 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Curious which circles (honestly). I've never heard them referred to as "approvers", since I began in 2009, and since participating in this forum and all over social media.

 

NE Ohio area.

  • Surprised 1
Link to comment
On 7/20/2021 at 10:11 AM, thebruce0 said:

But the negative effect is when one makes a decision based on trusting the legitimacy of prior logs (whatever log type they may be). That is where false finds have the biggest impact. Additionally, examples were cited about how even the content of a false find can affect someone's experience in finding it or choosing to find it.

I have to admit, I missed those examples, but I think our disagreement comes from talking about two different things. I'm thinking of an anomaly, a individual find that is wrong. It could be someone that really wanted to log that cache, or it could be someone that's accidentally logs the wrong cache, or who knows what.

 

You seem to be talking about a log filed by someone that is intentionally and continually lying about finding caches. Yes, I can see how that would be upsetting, particularly if I found out his goal was to deceive seekers such as myself, but I'd be upset about the liar, not the individual false find log.

Link to comment
On 7/20/2021 at 8:57 PM, niraD said:

I'll add only that some volunteer reviewers have been rather insistent that they do not approve cache listings, that they only review them for compliance with the (current) guidelines

...

 

If they are going to be that pedantic I think they should remove the word "volunteer" from the job description, as they are not exactly volunteers.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

I was wondering why I was spending more than 1,000 hours per year as a Reviewer and Forum Moderator, being paid only with a few geocoins and t-shirts, until I hit my 10 year anniversary in 2013 and learned about the corporate jet benefit.

  • Funny 4
  • Love 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Keystone said:

I was wondering why I was spending more than 1,000 hours per year as a Reviewer and Forum Moderator, being paid only with a few geocoins and t-shirts, until I hit my 10 year anniversary in 2013 and learned about the corporate jet benefit.

"Yinz" get all the good stuff!

 

  • Funny 1
Link to comment

Hi Ed,

 

Just to defend your memory, my Reviewer account name used to be "Keystone Approver" until Geocaching HQ moved away from that concept (see Moun10Bike's post above).  There were several other Reviewers who needed to make name changes because of that.

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

You seem to be talking about a log filed by someone that is intentionally and continually lying about finding caches.

 

Nope, not just intentionally. As mentioned above, any false log can have that effect when making decisions, unless you choose not to trust logs or content on principle.

Link to comment
11 hours ago, Keystone said:

I was wondering why I was spending more than 1,000 hours per year as a Reviewer and Forum Moderator, being paid only with a few geocoins and t-shirts, until I hit my 10 year anniversary in 2013 and learned about the corporate jet benefit.

 

Your work is wonderful, unpaid, and highly appreciated.  However, the terminology that HQ uses to describe your position as a "community volunteer," is intentionally misleading.  It implies that (1) you volunteered your services before being asked, and (2) the geocaching community selects the reviewers.

 

In actual fact, the reviewers are unpaid employees of Groundspeak, who both selects the reviewers and directs their activities.

 

In no way am I questioning the good intentions or quality of work of the reviewers; as I said before,  their work is highly valued and I greatly appreciate them.

Edited by fizzymagic
  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
On 7/22/2021 at 8:40 AM, Keystone said:

Hi Ed,

 

Just to defend your memory, my Reviewer account name used to be "Keystone Approver" until Geocaching HQ moved away from that concept (see Moun10Bike's post above).  There were several other Reviewers who needed to make name changes because of that.

Thanks for the provenance, my fellow old-timer.  

 

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...