Conditional Logs until confirmed

[cdangues]

I'm new on Geochaching but a lot runs on chats related with the amount of logs you have.

Some reporting that on same day, chaches logges on several places of the workd by the same geochacher just to have a lot....

It would be a block on this if any log remains conditional until the cache owner checks and confirms the user by the log.

 

What's your opinion?

[+TeamRabbitRun]

Friend, I think you're suggesting that logs remain 'unaccepted' until a CO confirms each log by looking at the logbook at the cache site.

 

You can't really expect every CO to make regular FREQUENT trips to every one of their caches to do this. I have caches I haven't seen in a very long time because they're remote or just in a different direction from how I drive to work every day. They're found occasionally, and not found occasionally. If there's a string of DNFs, I may go look after evaluating the nature of the player reporting, but it's rare.

 

I don't check my caches on every DNF, but if we require COs to check on 'Found' logs, then there will be numbskulls out there who will harass us until their FINDS are confirmed.

 

Not what any of us signed up for.

 

 

The problem you're talking about, players logging caches all over the world on the same day, occurs in one of two ways. The legitimate way is where several people operate under one account as a 'team', as my wife and I do, although she's never gone off on her own. But, if she takes a trip and wants to bag a cache or two, fine.

 

The less-than-legitimate case (in my opinion) is where players just throw 'Find Logs' out there around the world to mess with the rest of us and boost their numbers. They know that they will only rarely be detected and called out for it, and don't care. Guaranteed, if any CO deletes a log from one of these Cache Maggots, they wouldn't care or complain.

 

These people aren't playing the same game as me. The only defense is to delete their logs when they're on your caches, and play against yourself, ONLY. Don't be concerned with the people who say they have a million FINDS. Laugh at them for their foolishness.

 

If you were serious about your suggestion, then you're punishing ME for the activities of a bunch of knuckleheads that are only impressing themselves.

 

Play for you, not the rest of us.

[+hzoi]

No, thank you.

 

What is the ratio of fake loggers to those who play the game legitimately? One out of a thousand? One out of one hundred thousand? Yet we should change the structure of the game to protect against that small number? I don't think so.

 

When it happens, it's normally clear enough that it is noticed. Those cache owners that care, will delete the improper logs. No additional system needs to be put into place to gurad against it.

[+niraD]

5 hours ago, cdangues said:

What's your opinion?

All the logs on my caches would remain "conditional" forever.

Edited November 9, 2021 by niraD

[+Max and 99]

5 hours ago, cdangues said:

I'm new on Geochaching but a lot runs on chats related with the amount of logs you have.

Some reporting that on same day, chaches logges on several places of the workd by the same geochacher just to have a lot....

It would be a block on this if any log remains conditional until the cache owner checks and confirms the user by the log.

 

What's your opinion?

I can just picture the tons of notifications to a cache owner: 

 

I logged your cache yesterday and you still haven't confirmed it. What's taking so long?

 

You haven't confirmed my log yet how much longer will it take?

 

You're messing up my stats since you haven't confirmed my log yet. Please check it today. 

 

You have not checked any logs this week. Are you no longer active in geocaching?

[+CAVinoGal]

5 hours ago, cdangues said:

It would be a block on this if any log remains conditional until the cache owner checks and confirms the user by the log.

 

What's your opinion?

 

My opinion is that this is creating un-neccessary work for a CO.  IF I get a suspicious log, or one that I KNOW is a fake find, I can delete it.  To have to verify ALL logs and "approve" them is not what I want to do.  Geocaching is pretty much on the honor system - if I claim a find online, the assumption is that I have visited the cache and put my name on the logsheet.

 

As a CO, I assume that the online log notifications I receive are from legitimate cachers who have visited my cache.  Rarely is there ever a question if the cacher actually visited the cache and signed the log.  Why change the entire game (and yes, having to wait for "approval" before my log is "counted", or on the flip side, having to approve every log as a CO) is a game changer) for a miniscule percentage of logs?  Besides, I'm inclined to believe the vast majority of CO's will react like niraD - 

28 minutes ago, niraD said:

All the logs on my caches would remain "conditional" forever.

 

As a CO, checking and verifying every log will get old very quickly, and likely will turn into an auto approval of every log anyway, just to avoid the hassle.  

 

For the record, I do occasionally check the logs on my caches, have never deleted an online log, and haven't had issues with fake logs.  If I ever do, I'll simply delete the bogus log(s).  There's no need to force everyone else to wait for verification when the logs are legitimate nearly all the time.

[+cerberus1]

7 hours ago, cdangues said:

What's your opinion?

Noticed you don't have any caches of your own to see how your plan would work...  Lead by example.  

A friend's husband is a pilot, and it's common to find caches in this state and a state on the other side of the country on the same day.

 

I'm still injured.   Not enough where I can't walk, but hoisting myself up rope to check my cache every time someone accesses ain't happening right now (and I'm pretty sure it'll be the same in the future...).   Maybe if I had a buncha 1.5/1.5 gladware along a park trail...

When I can, those who (seems like you're saying...) are "faking it" will know when their log gets deleted without an explanation.

It's worded that I'll check the log for both our remaining T5s.  I'd bet they don't notice, and/or don't care...

[+niraD]

1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

Overall there are more entries in the physical logbook than there are online logs

That would happen a lot when I took kids from church geocaching. A couple kids might have geocaching names, plus me and maybe one other adult. But often, everyone would write something.

[+Wet Pancake Touring Club]

My sister-in-law goes geocaching all the time, and hasn't logged a cache online in the last 15 years.

 

So, assuming TPTB do implement this, then the next logical step is for CO's to ask for an alternative method of verification, such as a QR code. And that will open yet another can of worms. QR codes will get passed around, and all we have done is making legitimate logging more difficult. Short of equipping every geocache with a DNA scanner, I don't see anyway to prevent someone from false logging.

[+cerberus1]

17 hours ago, Wet Pancake Touring Club said:

My sister-in-law goes geocaching all the time, and hasn't logged a cache online in the last 15 years.

 

Yep.  When we first started, I'd bet a third in the area didn't log online. I wanted to at one time, but "ignoring" each done cache...IDK...

Distant woods caches are getting rare, and haven't seen most in some time.  

[+ChriBli]

I'm pretty sure I've seen a thread where it was debated whether or not it actually matters to anyone else if someone is logging caches online without visiting them. Without offering an opinion on that, it is out of the question that COs should run out and check their physical logs every time someone writes and online log. Of course, when a CO actually does visit their own cache for some reason, they could compare the logs and delete any fake online entries.

Edited November 10, 2021 by ChriBli

[+kunarion]

19 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

[Cacher Name] has an online log with that name and date, but after that it just goes bonkers. None of the names match any of the online logs and the only date that matches anything online is 3/10/21. There's nothing online dated 11/7//21 or 12/8/21, but there's an online log dated 20/6/21. Overall there are more entries in the physical logbook than there are online logs, but how many of them were the same people is anyone's guess. I'm not about to go deleting logs, or even querying them, in a situation like this. It's really not worth the effort.

 

Yes!  It can take serious detective work to "verify" logs, and a CO could easily overlook important clues, delete finds, and cause new issues.  I mainly need to delete a log only because it was logged by mistake -- the cacher simply needs to log the correct cache they found.  That's happened to me on some Finds, but I usually catch the error myself.

 

One of my caches that is very hard to find recently developed a Found Log.  It's a secure cache (dare I say elegant? ), so I can almost tell from a log whether they found it or not.  I checked this recent log, and sure enough, no such signature is on the paper sheet.

 

And I'm allowing it as a legitimate find.

 

What happened is, a family found it a month ago, and a child in that family who was there that day has logged it now.  I had to look at Profiles, other caches in the park, and other Finds to figure it out.  So the date of the Find isn't correct, but the Find itself is genuine.  Glad I didn't delete anything. 

 

 

[+kunarion]

19 hours ago, ChriBli said:

it is out of the question that COs should run out and check their physical logs every time someone writes and online log.

 

I agree.  But there are some caches that have a list of DNFs including my DNF, that today have developed one Find log.  I've waited months for the CO to go check.  If the cache is in fact extant, I'd go look some more.  But with just that one terse log, I can't tell.

 

 

Edited November 11, 2021 by kunarion

[+briansnat]

On 11/10/2021 at 11:34 AM, kunarion said:

 

I agree.  But there are some caches that have a list of DNFs including my DNF, that today have developed one Find log.  I've waited months for the CO to go check.  If the cache is in fact extant, I'd go look some more.  But with just that one terse log, I can't tell.

 

 

Then there is the phenomenon of DNFs feeding each other. Something I've encountered a lot as a CO. After a long string of finds, Cacher A posts a DNF.  Cacher B figures it might be missing, but searches for a bit and  posts a DNF. Cacher C sees two DNFs, thinks its missing, but gives it a cursory look and posts a DNF.  Now you have three DNFs on a cache that nobody else had an issue with.  So you check on it and it's right where it always was.

[+Max and 99]

54 minutes ago, briansnat said:

Then there is the phenomenon of DNFs feeding each other. Something I've encountered a lot as a CO. After a long string of finds, Cacher A posts a DNF.  Cacher B figures it might be missing, but searches for a bit and  posts a DNF. Cacher C sees two DNFs, thinks its missing, but gives it a cursory look and posts a DNF.  Now you have three DNFs on a cache that nobody else had an issue with.  So you check on it and it's right where it always was.

Those are such fun finds! (Finding one after a whole bunch of DNFs). It feels good. 😁

[+kunarion]

1 hour ago, Max and 99 said:

Those are such fun finds! (Finding one after a whole bunch of DNFs). It feels good. 😁

 

I found one a couple weeks ago that had developed 4 DNFs in a row.  When I typed my Found It log, I tried not to sound awesome, and almost succeeded!  

 

That cache could apply to the OP, because not only were people not finding it, but it's a creative style where a photo of any part of it could ruin the surprise.  I usually take photos of at least Toothless with the log sheet (while trying not to spoil it for future finders).  Although it's more to remind me of the cache than to prove it (more of a souvenir of a find for me), COs may be confident I actually found it, based on my posted pic.  Except for that one, with no log/cache photo.

 

Edited November 16, 2021 by kunarion

[+cerberus1]

11 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

Those are such fun finds! (Finding one after a whole bunch of DNFs). It feels good. 😁

 

We were FTF on a 1.5T ammo can cache once. Lots of people looking for the thing, getting ticked, calling the CO who won't give a hint.

The other 2/3rds picked me up for a retry, and I found it in a few minutes.  The guy who can't find anything smaller than a 30cal...  

Everyone was in such a rush to get that FTF they envisioned ammo can, but must have missed that "other" in the cache size. 

Micro ammo can.   

[+colleda]

On 11/17/2021 at 3:20 AM, cerberus1 said:

 

We were FTF on a 1.5T ammo can cache once. Lots of people looking for the thing, getting ticked, calling the CO who won't give a hint.

The other 2/3rds picked me up for a retry, and I found it in a few minutes.  The guy who can't find anything smaller than a 30cal...  

Everyone was in such a rush to get that FTF they envisioned ammo can, but must have missed that "other" in the cache size. 

Micro ammo can.   

Agree. I have one of those.

GC6XG1Q

[+GeoElmo6000]

I once audited one of my caches, and it was the last time I ever did that.  It was a lazy weekend day and I had a cache I wanted to maintain because I knew the log was getting full.  So I went over to the cache, replaced the log, went home, and compared the log sheet to the list of those who logged online.  The log sheet wasn't in wonderful shape and had gotten wet at some point, so some of the names were hard to make out.  There were two cachers who logged it online whose names I didn't see on the log sheet, so I contacted one that I had met before and asked about it.  The response I got was a swear laden email that was rather shocking, and hostility that lasted for a long period after that.

 

Since then, I don't audit my caches because a) it's just a game, b) it's not worth it, and c) who cares.

 

We get along now but it took a lot of time and work on my part to get past that.

[+Max and 99]

46 minutes ago, GeoElmo6000 said:

I once audited one of my caches, and it was the last time I ever did that.  It was a lazy weekend day and I had a cache I wanted to maintain because I knew the log was getting full.  So I went over to the cache, replaced the log, went home, and compared the log sheet to the list of those who logged online.  The log sheet wasn't in wonderful shape and had gotten wet at some point, so some of the names were hard to make out.  There were two cachers who logged it online whose names I didn't see on the log sheet, so I contacted one that I had met before and asked about it.  The response I got was a swear laden email that was rather shocking, and hostility that lasted for a long period after that.

 

Since then, I don't audit my caches because a) it's just a game, b) it's not worth it, and c) who cares.

 

We get along now but it took a lot of time and work on my part to get past that.

That's rough!

One of my caches I did that for is a little bit of a tricky find. I asked the geocacher about their name not being on the log and she was absolutely perplexed and said that her partner always takes photos of the caches and logs so she was going to check with her. Turns out it was a totally accidental log and they indeed had not been there and found the cache (she knew something was up when the people she geocached with that day hadn't logged the cache). I knew it was totally unintentional! She joked about it when she actually came back to find the cache. Things happen. That's such a shame that someone treated you like that. If you had asked me I would have at least described the container and what I found in it and where it was hidden. 

[+niraD]

2 hours ago, GeoElmo6000 said:

The response I got was a swear laden email that was rather shocking, and hostility that lasted for a long period after that.

This forum really needs a "Sad" response. 

[+CheekyBrit]

On 11/19/2021 at 4:25 PM, GeoElmo6000 said:

I once audited one of my caches, and it was the last time I ever did that.

I have a difficult to reach 25' in a tree cache. The rating is high and attracts a fair bit of attention but every now and then someone will spot the cache, make no physical contact, and log it as though it were a virtual cache. I audited my cache like GeoElmo6000 did and contacted those who hadn't physically logged it.
I'm not very personality A so I told them I have the TOTT that makes it very easy and am happy for them to borrow it or go with me some time so their log can become legitimate. 

[+kunarion]

On 11/19/2021 at 6:25 PM, GeoElmo6000 said:

Since then, I don't audit my caches because a) it's just a game, b) it's not worth it, and c) who cares.

 

Of my 30 or so active caches, there's just one (I mentioned it here) where I state in the description that they must sign the identifiable log in the cache, or it's not gonna count.  NO funny business.  It's safe and in place, you can find it, it's super tough, it's perfect, it's the most awesome cache in the whole wide world, and I won't take "not signing that log sheet" as a Find.  All the rest of my caches, I'm not so strict.  As you mentioned, trying to deal with "cache log signature verification", you could bite half a tail fin off in frustration.  But on that one, the whole point is the actual find and the accomplishment of signing the log.

 

Edited November 30, 2021 by kunarion

[+thebruce0]

We have a group that heads out occasionally to find a long list of caches in some area, and guaranteed there are probably half the people who don't visit every cache. The group signs the group name (and sometimes the signer signs their own name, perhaps as 'insurance'), and a group chat alerts everyone to which have been found. Sometimes you see pics posted to some caches with a few cachers  but there are many many logs from that day and the group, most of which are nondescript and generic.

 

The 'group name' loophole is an easy way to claim caches you haven't visited. But it's not worth bickering over. That said, it is frustrating as a cache owner, especially when you know people who would enjoy the cache who probably didn't experience it.  You put time and effort into the scouting, the placing, the writeup, in an effort to provide a fun experience. Sure, if they skip it, they're only "cheating themselves", but as COs it can be discouraging because those people imply your cache is only good for a smiley statistic, especially if it's a hard one (D or T). 

 

If I'm with a group it's either a small group and we stick together, or I try to get my name in the log. If I don't visit or attempt a cache on a list, I won't log it even if the rest of the group does. It doesn't feel right, it feels like it robs the CO of the reward of an experience provided, and I of course miss out on the experience - even if it's an LPC or a nano in a forest.

 

'Illegitimate' finds can absolutely bring the game down, even if COs are of the mind to just let it go "because it's just a game."  There's no harm or shame in trying to promote good etiquette for the sake of finders and hiders (as opposed to policing and berating people don't do it "the right way"). I'm all for promoting the spirit of finding caches, or getting help to find caches - but actually going to or attempting the caches, or otherwise ignoring caches.  Be a part of the find if you don't/can't do it yourself, but what is effectively couch logging (claiming a find under a group name when you didn't make an attempt yourself) is in its essence contrary to the spirit of the activity.

 

/soapbox

Edited December 1, 2021 by thebruce0

[+cerberus1]

10 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

We have a group that heads out occasionally to find a long list of caches in some area, and guaranteed there are probably half the people who don't visit every cache. The group signs the group name (and sometimes the signer signs their own name, perhaps as 'insurance'), and a group chat alerts everyone to which have been found. Sometimes you see pics posted to some caches with a few cachers  but there are many many logs from that day and the group, most of which are nondescript and generic.

 

Yeah...   We used to cache with others a lot, and sometimes saw the same...  

I'd bet many have been with a larger group, and a small sub-group lags behind, chatting, or pretty-much seems only along for the ride. 

Sometimes those same people's online logs may come weeks after us. 

These are the same people that always show up, often hand everyone a "coin" or similar when we all meet, always help with work as well as play, and always bring the most "stuff" to potlucks.

We wouldn't think of saying anything to those people, considering the good must somehow outweigh the "bad"...

[+thebruce0]

And here's the other thing, "as long as they got out and had fun then great" - sure, absolutely, totally agreed, even if the cache was a part of the incentive for it all - but that's not what a "Find log" is intended to indicate.  It's awesome that you had fun with friends and someone from your group found a cache you weren't anywhere near, but why must your positive social experience be marked by a Find log that has other implications and meaning to the rest of the public? #petpeeve

 

On 12/1/2021 at 12:20 PM, cerberus1 said:

We wouldn't think of saying anything to those people, considering the good must somehow outweigh the "bad"...

 

Yeah, no one wants to be "that guy" who brings a positive experience down. But if you turn the tables, the people who insist on "just let it go because it hurts nobody" are in essence forcing their way and, in theory, hurting people (the ones who like to see legitimacy and consistency, in accordance with the spirit of the hobby). No one wants to be a debbi-downer.