Cache approvers will now delete logs.

August 30, 2003

It seems that cache approvers/moderators will now go onto cache pages and delete logs if the log book has not been signed.

From the UK Forum.

In the case being discussed there it is fair that the cache wasn't logged, but as there are a number of legitimate reason why it could be possible not to write in the log, I see this as a worrying development.

Surely it's the job of the cache owner to decide whether or not to delete a log from his cache page. Is this just another example of approvers extending their powers without remit?

Alex.

------------------------------------------------

Knights of the Green Shield stamp and shout.....

1k · August 30, 2003

Hello Alex,

As usual your contribution is direct and straight to the point.

For your further information I had already communicated with the setter of the cache, he himself had already deleted a similar log earlier and was going to delete this one as well. I took the opportunity of doing so, obviously incorrectly in your opinion (and it is an oppinion which I always listen to because I thrive on the debate it causes), and also of writing to the cacher who had written the log asking him to make no more further loggings of the cache.

I so very much regret the obvious distress this has caused you but, as with other issues you have had with my methodology I feel that I have carried out my duties within my interpretation of the guidelines, and will stick by my decision.

Cheers and Cache Well,

Eckington

1.6k · August 30, 2003

"gc.com moderators and approvers have stated that unless the setter agrees a find can not be logged unless the log book is signed."

Let's adjust that sentence with some punctuation and highlighting...

"gc.com moderators and approvers have stated that, unless the setter agrees, a find can not be logged unless the log book is signed."

To me, that means the cache owner can, in fact, allow a find with an unsigned log.

This also do NOT mean that approvers are going to start scanning the logs and deleting log they think are not legit. They have enough to do and that is still the responsibility of the cache owner.

I see no problem with the above.

CR

2.3k · August 30, 2003

Has this really been a problem in the past?

Sometimes there is no log to sign or nothing to sign it with and the geocacher may or may not have brought his own backups...

I know we work on the honor system here but there are always those that are less than honorable...

It should be up to the cache owner as to whether to accept the find or not.

---------------------------------------------------

Free your mind and the rest will follow

1.6k · August 30, 2003

There should always be two things in a cache--a usable log and writing instrument. I'll forgive some caches the writing intrument even though I've seen trading 35mm cannister micros with stubby pencils.

Any cacher with more than a few finds should know to have pen or pencil on them. If you're carrying a kit, at least have a cheap notebook to tear pages out of to leave in the cache.

Yeah, yeah, I know, sometimes we forget in the heat of the moment. I can't say I've not ever done the same. Just saying, not having your own is no excuse.

Heck, I even carry a fine Sharpie for instances of wet logs. We try to make sure we skip a page or two because of bleed-through.

yes, we feel very strongly about signing the log.

CR

August 30, 2003

How can this be an issue? There are no stats, remember? Who cares if someone logs a find online when they haven't found it in reality?

August 30, 2003

hmmm... how would anyone but the cache owner know if they hadn't signed the log... oh wait - people who ADMIT to not signing the log in their online log, perhaps. ah. who has the time to check this?

___________________________________

who's got the pig?

August 30, 2003

Team travel pig,

I once left a controversial log on a local cache page. The owner of the cache had no problems with my log,(I asked him) and no one in my immediate area had a problem with it either. However, there was a geocacher over three hundred miles away who took great offense to said log. This guy was not looking for caches to do in this area, as he never came geocaching here. (or if he did he didn't find even one cache), so he must have just been looking to make a problem for somebody. I guess my point is that there are plenty of "trollers" who do nothing but look for stuff to gripe about. Keep your eyes open in here, you will see it yourself.

Bender

Searching, for the lost Xanadu

9.2k · August 30, 2003

We're only getting a part of the story. The cache had gone missing, and had been archived. Then someone posted a found log. Obviously, they didn't sign the log, as there wasn't one to sign.

However, it's the cache owner's prerogative to delete or not to delete a log. The approver states that the owner "was going to delete this one as well". If that's true, why didn't you simply let him?

This is a clear case of the approver overstepping their authority.

"Don't mess with a geocacher. We know all the best places to hide a body."

August 30, 2003

quote:
However, it's the cache owner's prerogative to delete or not to delete a log. The approver states that the owner "was going to delete this one as well". If that's true, why didn't you simply let him?

This is a clear case of the approver overstepping their authority

In this particular instance it sounds that the cacher making the online log find had posted his find once previous and the owner of the cache had deleted it once before. When the cacher logged again, the cache owner sought the help of an admin to delete and advise the logging cacher to not post the find again.

I have posted one find where I met the criteria of a cache but because I did not have the printout or my PDA on the cache hunt with me, I couldn't jump through a 'proving' factor. However, I did have my digital camera and enough 'proving' photos to show that I had gone the distance on the cache. I contacted the cache owner with my 'proof' and he accepted it as a postable find. Those darn 'virtuals'.

m&myellow.gif got tattoo?

[This message was edited by C.T. on August 30, 2003 at 08:13 AM.]

August 30, 2003

i'll delete any d@mn log i feel like. the approvers better not mess with my cache once it has been approved and i haven't changed it. or are we getting into the random rules again. you know, rules that are haphazardly created or enforced at random intervals. that seems to happen alot at gc.com.

Creativity Within The Bounds Of Conformity

August 30, 2003

While I agree that is it the cache owners perogative to kep sthe cache records accurate, there can be extenuating circumstances. I am grateful to one particualr cache owner who allowed me to log a find after I posed a note to the cache log.

The cache was within a state run park and Ting and I dragged my folks out to caching. (They don't mind, they like to exercise.) Anyway, we had found the cache in a truck of a tree. Sitting on top of the cache were a couple of snakes that did NOT want to be moved. sine I did not log a find since we did not sign the log. However, the cache owner did write to us and ask us to discribe the location. When we did, they offered to let me change it to a find.

To good cache owners, cheers!

I thought I was a little off, then I looked at my GPS and discovered I accurate to 12 ft.

Geocachers don't NEED to ask for directions!

3.8k · August 30, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Pluckers:
How can this be an issue? There are no stats, remember? Who cares if someone logs a find online when they haven't found it in reality?

Exactly. If an issue exists, it is between the finder and the hider.

==============="If it feels good...do it"================

**(the other 9 out of 10 voices in my head say: "Don't do it.")**

.

August 30, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Pluckers:
How can this be an issue? There are no stats, remember? Who cares if someone logs a find online when they haven't found it in reality?

thats right, there are no stats, so who really freakin' cares about logs that are not really found? i think we should get rid of total finds stat too. it's a waste of time.

sounds to me like the admins are looking for something to do besides their token approval to assert that they still have some small amount of authority over a game which is basically in a state of anarchy.

yeah, anarchy rules!!!

Creativity Within The Bounds Of Conformity

August 30, 2003

What do we win if we find the most caches?

--------------------

You have the right to defend yourself, even when geocaching!

2.3k · August 30, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by mckee:
What do we win if we find the most caches?

A virtual pat on the back.

Remember, wherever you go- there you are!

2.5k · August 30, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by mckee:
What do we win if we find the most caches?

What do you lose by not finding them?

August 30, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Corp Of Discovery:
A virtual pat on the back.

WHAT??? Well there goes MY reason for claiming all those archived caches!

If the numbers only mean something to the individual user, why worry that somebody else had a cache taken away from them because their find was questionable?

--------------------

You have the right to defend yourself, even when geocaching!

24.7k · August 30, 2003

1) Stubby pencils make bad writing worse.

2) You may not have a pencil handy for a cache that doesn't have it. I've used sticks and mud to sign a log before.

3) Stick and mud may not be available.

4) Old caches were archived in with no log book.

5) Blood is too much to ask.

6) In a downpour with no means of respite opening the cache to the elements may not be advisable. (Hence no signed log)

7) Your cache partner may have neglected to sign you in the log when you both found it.

8) Cache log is full and the margins are full, and the covers are full and the geocache note is full...

9) etc. etc. etc.

There are a lot of reasons (as has been stated) a log may not get signed. If they log online and not in the log book it's entirely up the the cache owner. Amdins have a lot of other things to take care of. IMNSHO

August 30, 2003

I nominate Jomarac5 to go to every cache and match up their logs with the online find claims.

--------------------

You have the right to defend yourself, even when geocaching!

August 30, 2003

'Upon approval of a new physical cache, an activation code called a _Lid Code_ shall be randomly generated and emailed to the cache owner (similar to the activation code that was once used for so-called _travel bugs_, before all such travelling items were banned back in '05 following the tragic Eastwestern Airlines incident over Dallas). This lid code shall be written in indelible ink on the inside of the lid of the geocache. Finders shall make note of the Lid Code before leaving the cache site.

The Lid Code shall be required to be input to the online log entry screen. Failure to input the proper Lid Code shall prevent the log entry from being posted to the online cache description page, and thus block the finder from adding a point to his total score. No penalty shall be assessed for forgetting the Lid Code, save the penalty of having to go back out to the cache site to record it again.'

Nothing can make you sign the physical logbook, but according to our friend Hoyle, you'd at least have to conspire to steal the lid code from someone else in order to cheat.

Now here's an even deeper question, one which has no doubt been debated at length here and I'm sure someone will be happy to "Markwell" me over the head with it, but what good is the logbook when it is full?

August 30, 2003

lowracer said

quote:
....what good is the logbook when it is full?

emergency tp

2.1k · August 31, 2003

lowracer, that does sound like a good idea...make it like logging a travel bug. When they submit a cache and it is approved, then they are randomly sent a special code like a travel bug tracking number that they need to write on the container or in it. Then once you log it it online, you have to enter the code to claim it, like on the TB's. That way it does slow down on those who are logging finds for things they never went after.

On the specific issue at hand, I do agree that the log shouldn't of been deleted by the approver, unless he had permission from the cache owner. There was a cache type that was used in reference to inconsistency of the approvers in the forum without stating it's name, location or even waypoint name, that an approver took it upon himself to find in my list of finds and archive it. Not only did he do that, but he deleted my find and log as well. The cache owner knew nothing about it until they woke up one morning to their cache archived. And even then I think it would of been nice for the approver to contact the owner and try to fix the problem before archiving it. Especially when it was at fault of the approver for it getting approved in the first place.

Brian

As long as you're going to think anyway, think big. -Donald Trump

1.6k · August 31, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Woodsters Outdoors:
That way it does slow down on those who are logging finds for things they never went after.

You're kidding, right?

If that scheme was ever implemented, then there will be an uproar over having to sign logs. Once the physical logbooks go away the only means of verification would be that number. Then someone starts a simple, single web page. Each known GCXXXX/LIDcode could be posted and a simple search on that page could give you the code to that cache.

Bad idea in the extreme! There would be no way to effectively dispute a visit!

If you want an effective way to verify visits you need only look at what has worked very well for quite a long time. In letterboxing, the box has a stamp and you have a stamp. You stamp the box's stamp in your log and stamp your stamp in the box's log. Anyone who reads the box's logbook can see who has visited and anyone who reads your logbook can see what boxes you've visited.

It's a hell of lot harder to counterfeit a stamping than a numbered code!

CR

2.1k · August 31, 2003

No didn't say that they wouldn't have to sign a log there at the cache, but they would also need that "lidcode". It's not going to make it any worse. It's going to add a little more verification to the process.

Brian

As long as you're going to think anyway, think big. -Donald Trump

1.6k · August 31, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by lowracer:
...but what good is the logbook when it is full?

It's been my experience that you can always find a small corner to jot your initials and date. About the only logs I've seen that have even come close to be unsignable because of so many signatures are the mirco scroll logs.

CR

1.6k · August 31, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Woodsters Outdoors:
No didn't say that they wouldn't have to sign a log there at the cache, but they would also need that "lidcode". It's not going to make it any worse. It's going to add a little more verification to the process.

You don't recall the complaining about the log requirement even in micro caches? What about the code word caches? This LIDcode is the same as a codeword cache and is subject to the same problems. I can already hear the complaints, "Why do I have to sign the log when I have the codeword?"

There is only one form of verification needed, the logbook.

That makes it a good, but not only, reason for the prohibition on vacation caches. If there is a question on a find, you should be able to run out and take a look at the logbook.

CR

2.1k · August 31, 2003

The logbook is the part of the game. That is why they will not allow caches that do not have logbooks and one reason of why they are tightening the hatches on the virts as well. The idea is not to take away from the origin of the game but to help keep others honest. People are going to complain about things anyway.

I do think that the cache owners should do period checks on their caches. Check the logbook with the online logs. But, I would think that it would help the cache owner when in doubt if the person did visit the site or not. It's just as easy for someone to now say, I found it, but didn't have time to sign the log or the bugs were so bad. It's up to the cache owner to decide whether or not, it was a valid reason and if it should be logged a find. But even then, you are going to have people who actually did find it and didn't sign the book for one reason or another and the cache owner isn't going to accept it. And for those who do a lot of caches, they really aren't going to remember specifics about every cache they visited, especially if the owner waits a period of time and then questions the find. Having a lidcode, just strengthens the discussion of whether or not they were actually there. If I were a cache owner and the lidcode was in effect, and I saw that someone logged it online, but not in the book, then I would question the validity of it. But then it should be up to the cache owner as to whether they will accept it or not.

Brian

As long as you're going to think anyway, think big. -Donald Trump

August 31, 2003

i thought it was decided earlier that stats, i.e. total finds don't mean anything. so why does it matter if people log caches they didn't find? does this entire thread make any sense, since it was decided in an earlier thread that total finds stat is meaningless? you people are getting all worked up over nothing.

Creativity Within The Bounds Of Conformity

3k · August 31, 2003

quote:
There is only one form of verification needed, the logbook. ... If there is a question on a find, you should be able to run out and take a look at the logbook.

I agree with you, but this almost never happens; the overwhelming majority of cache owners obviously don't care. They want the online log and couldn't care less whether that online log is legitimate or not.

I don't think it's too much of a stretch to suggest that a higher number of legitimate logs get deleted by owners with a grudge against someone (who did, in fact visit the cache and sign the logbook) than illegitimate logs (from people who never visited the cache.)

Onto the other topic: Lidcodes, code words, etc., would verify nothing unless the 'code' was unique for every finder.

People have attempted to do that by several methods ... but if, for example, the cache owner left a stack of 52 'keys,' nothing would stop any single visitor from taking several and passing the unique codes onto others who had not visited the cache.

[This message was edited by BassoonPilot on August 31, 2003 at 04:55 PM.]

August 31, 2003

WOW this thread is Lame, we all know people cheat and if we worry about it too much it lessens the experience for everyone. Who care how many someone else logged? I don't.

2.7k · August 31, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by G.O. Mental:
lowracer said

quote:
....what good is the logbook when it is full?

emergency tp

Especially effective when wet. Which is usually the case.

Caint never did nothing.

GDAE, Dave

2.7k · August 31, 2003

To reiterate several posts in plain language:

WHO CARES?!

As a 'responsible cache owner', I have better things to do than compare paper logs to online. Firstly, access to the online logs in the field beside the cache is difficult (though generally not impossible) and involves spending much too much time at the cache site with the resultant probability of being observed with open cache in hand. Likewise, making copies of the log book is also too time consuming.

Shoot, for owners who have many caches, this would be a 60hr/wk job!

Even cache owners like to go out and actually FIND one once in a while, not spend all their time maintaining their own.

Since I do not offer any prizes for people that log my caches, I see no need to play 'Policeman'.

If you are a devout cheater, feel free to pull up any or all of my cache pages, even the temporarily disabled ones, and log till your heart's content.

If they ever do institute a 'lid code', the web page mentioned by sissy and cr would be a nice thing for those times when we forget the number.

Does such a page exist for travel bugs? I have on a few occasions wanted to add a note to a TB I had previously handled, (don't remember why) but cannot do so because I did not record the magic number before I sent it on.

Caint never did nothing.

GDAE, Dave

2.1k · August 31, 2003

ChurchCampDave, why even place a cache if you aren't going to maintain it? I would think there is more to maintaining a cache, than to simply make sure it's still there and resupply a log book. Maybe I am thinking there is more to placing a cache than there really is. From your perspective I gained that placing a cache is just doing that...just placing one. On the part about those who have many and the fact that they wouldn't be able to do such a thing, well I've wondered about that too. I don't see how one can have so many caches all over, properly maintain them and then find many caches each week as well. I haven't placed a cache...I've always thought there was more put into placing one as well as maintaining one. I wanted to be sure that when and wherever I place one that I do it correctly and in a great place and with pride.

Another question and I don't want it to sound smart a$$, but if people are not checking the logs, then why have them? Whenever i'm not in a hurry and the bugs aren't bad, I will sit and read some of the logs that people write in the book. Other times I will read the online logs as well. If these logs are serving no purpose, then I think many will not even bother to sign them, with maybe an exception of logging like a micro log. There will be a lot of people not signing them either. More or less of , yep there it is, I see it over there, let's go. Then it will be a bunch of virtuals of tupperware in the woods.

Brian

As long as you're going to think anyway, think big. -Donald Trump

3.8k · August 31, 2003

..........Hydeeeeee!...........

==============="If it feels good...do it"================

**(the other 9 out of 10 voices in my head say: "Don't do it.")**

.

2.1k · August 31, 2003

she's probably off for the weekend sept1c....you might want to hit the panic button that looks like a caution sign...lol

Brian

As long as you're going to think anyway, think big. -Donald Trump

4.1k · August 31, 2003

Well for the benifit of those that aren't satisfied with just using the log book to verify a find there is the small matter of all those questionable finds that are in the log book but not on-line. Are they really finds or is someone just logging in as several different people to make the cache owner feel good? How are we going to make those people use the 'lid codes'?

K.I.S.S. ( keep it simple, stupid)

john of 2oldfarts

*******************************************************

Human beings can always be counted on to assert with vigor their God-given right to be stupid.--Dean Koontz

2.7k · August 31, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Woodsters Outdoors:
ChurchCampDave, why even place a cache if you aren't going to maintain it? I would think there is more to maintaining a cache, than to simply make sure it's still there and resupply a log book. Maybe I am thinking there is more to placing a cache than there really is. From your perspective I gained that placing a cache is just doing that...just placing one. On the part about those who have many and the fact that they wouldn't be able to do such a thing, well I've wondered about that too. I don't see how one can have so many caches all over, properly maintain them and then find many caches each week as well. I haven't placed a cache...I've always thought there was more put into placing one as well as maintaining one. I wanted to be sure that when and wherever I place one that I do it correctly and in a great place and with pride.

Another question and I don't want it to sound smart a$$, but if people are not checking the logs, then why have them? Whenever i'm not in a hurry and the bugs aren't bad, I will sit and read some of the logs that people write in the book. Other times I will read the online logs as well. If these logs are serving no purpose, then I think many will not even bother to sign them, with maybe an exception of logging like a micro log. There will be a lot of people not signing them either. More or less of , yep there it is, I see it over there, let's go. Then it will be a bunch of virtuals of tupperware in the woods.

Brian

_As long as you're going to think anyway, think big. -Donald Trump_

I maintain my caches fine. Nothing whatsoever in my post nor in my history of caching indicates otherwise.

I have had two go missing that I have replaced within a few weeks. I presently have two reported missing that i have not checked out because I am not a full-time cacher and I do have to do other things once in a while. But I will get to them and confirm and possibly replace them.

I nearly always check on a cache if someone posts a no-find.

I have on several occasions replenished the goodies in them.

If this does not meet YOUR definition of proper maintenance, please advise what else I need to do to ensure your happiness.

If maintaining a cache means copying the log books and comparing them to the online logs, then I say it aint worth the time and I'll pull all of them.

You say you sit down and read the logs. Wonderful! So do I.

Next time, try COPYING the log book or logging onto the web site with your cellphone whilst sitting upon a log in the woods (or perhaps on a bench in a crowded park where your main objective was to access the cache without 50 people asking 'whatcha doin?') and perhaps you'll understand what I'm talking about.

I still stand by my statement. If you (not u personally, but whosoever) want to log bogus logs- go for it. I promise I will not be the GeoCop that slaps your hand for being naughty.

Caint never did nothing.

GDAE, Dave

1.6k · September 1, 2003

CCD, you might not bust people for bogus logs, but I will and have.

By the way, hasn't it occured to you to print out your cache page and take into the field with you. If you're only looking to match names in the two logs it takes less than 60 seconds. No, we don't look too close, we aren't cops either, but if you log a find and say the cache is missing...

Anyway, log mainenence is as important as the rest of it. Not doing so cheapens the experience for the rest of us.

CR

2.1k · September 1, 2003

Ditto Sissy-n-CR

Brian

As long as you're going to think anyway, think big. -Donald Trump

4.5k · September 1, 2003

Some people above who have never hid a cache are suggesting to check logs at the cache against web page logs, etc. Wht a major occupation that is!

Go hide one first and maintain it and I think you'll change your mind. Who's got time for cross checking logs. Maybe we should make it mandatory. Can you imagine sitting in a Lyme deseased tick infested bush at sunset when the West Nile infected mosquitos are just aching to get there darts into you flesh writing down who actually visited your cache?

I'm not a geocop. If someone litters or spits on the street do you tap them on the shoulder and remind them it's against the law?

Lighten up folks. THis is a game with no prizes other than your own enjoyment whatever that is that you get from caching.

Alan

2.1k · September 1, 2003

As stated before, why would someone want to try to find your cache if it isn't being maintained?

The logbook serves no purpose if it is not being used as a record of finding the cache. I would think a periodic check monthly or so or depending on the amount of online logs you are getting, would warrant when you should you go check the logs. As Sissy/CR stated, you can easily print out hte online log, take it with you and see that the peoples names are matching up. Enquire those who's name don't. There's no foolproof way, but you can try your best. I would rather there be only 10 caches that are what I would call, properly maintained, than to have 100 that aren't.

If you think about it, if there is no involvement by the cache owner other than making sure the container stays there and doesn't leak, then it's a virtual. I merit cache owners as to have taken the time to not only place a cache, but to actually be involved with them. If you are a cache owner and are not, please email your profile name and I will generate my own list of those and if I come across those caches, I will not either log them or will just put my name in the logbook.

Brian

As long as you're going to think anyway, think big. -Donald Trump

2.7k · September 1, 2003

This thread is amazing!

All of a sudden I'm Geoscum because i don't compare my written logs with the online logs!

You people utterly amaze me!

Why on earth do YOU care, if you are not the cache owner of a particular cache, whether there are bogus logs on it?

IT IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!!!

As the poster a few above said and has been said THOUSANDS of times... IT IS JUST A GAME and the logs and the find statistics are only meaningful to the individual player.

If YOU want to erase logs that, in your opinion, are bogus... GO FOR IT!

The fact that I don't somehow makes me an undesirable cache owner.

What on God's Green Earth does deleting logs have to do with cache maintenance? If the cache is there and it is in good condition, it is properly maintained.

I think y'all are LOUSY cache owners unless you post a Pinkerton gaurd by each one of your caches and instruct the gaurd to arrest anyone who goes off trail too early, anyone who does not sign the log, anyone who does not replace the cache correctly, anyone who takes more than he leaves, and anyone who does not pick up at least 5 pieces of trash on the way out.

Lousy owners the lot of ya!

Oh, sorry, I forgot you don't own any caches yet.

Mine are listed on my stats page. (just right-click on the name) Don't hunt them! I don't play geocop!

Sheesh!

Caint never did nothing.

GDAE, Dave

2.1k · September 1, 2003

No I don't own any. I'm in no hurry. I've found an area that I would to place them. I did the proper thing (at least I thought it was proper and was to the guidance of veteran cachers here) and contacted the governing body over the land for approval. They are hesitant as people placed caches there before without permission and they became geolitter in their sense. I'm still waiting on a formal answer, but I will consider it a no, unless otherwise told. My area has a lot of caches. 1500 within 100 miles. Since i'm new to the area, I don't worry so much about placing one, simply because I don't know the areas like many others do here. If I run across a place that tickles my fancy, then I will inquire about placing one there. But there is no rush in it or to place a lot of them. I think that there is probably too much urgency placed in peoples minds about wanting to place a cache than really taking on the responsibility of one. I imagine that one puts a lot of time and effort in placing a cache. Seeking out the perfect spot, getting all the swag to put in it, making up a log book, getting a container and submitting it through the proper channels and hurdling the obstacles as they come. Then you have the approvers who take their own time and approve and disapprove a cache. Making sure they meet the requirements and hope they don't overlook things. All that time wasted on the cache placers and the approvers and Jeremy's too, because owners don't want to check a log book every now and then? As I stated before. They require the caches to have a log. I imagine there is a reason for it. If they aren't being monitored then what's the point? If I take the time to sit there after searching for a cache and make a log entry, then I would hope the owner is checking the log and reading the entries. There's no way to keep the cheaters out. Of course its a game, and no one is asking you to be a geocop. But why would you go through the trouble of placing a cache if your not wanting to be fully involved in it? The same virtual cache I mentioned earlier in this thread that got archived by a trigger happy approver, is owned by one of the best cache owners around. You see posts on their cache pages when they return to their caches to check on it. sometimes they stop by to swap out travel bugs. They do that and have many finds as well. They may spend more time at it than others, but they do take the time to care for whats most important to them and that's their own caches.

Brian

As long as you're going to think anyway, think big. -Donald Trump

4.1k · September 1, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by ChurchCampDave:
This thread is amazing!

I think y'all are LOUSY cache owners unless you post a Pinkerton gaurd by each one of your caches and instruct the gaurd to arrest anyone who goes off trail too early, anyone who does not sign the log, anyone who does not replace the cache correctly, anyone who takes more than he leaves, and anyone who does not pick up at least 5 pieces of trash on the way out.

Lousy owners the lot of ya!

GDAE, Dave

Hey Dave, maybe we can hire some ex-law enforcement to help us out...

*******************************************************

Human beings can always be counted on to assert with vigor their God-given right to be stupid.--Dean Koontz

2.1k · September 2, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by 2oldfarts (the rockhounders):

Hey Dave, maybe we can hire some ex-law enforcement to help us out...

And pay with McToys and used golf balls?

Brian

As long as you're going to think anyway, think big. -Donald Trump

2.7k · September 2, 2003

quote:
I imagine there is a reason for it. If they aren't being monitored then what's the point?

Ya' got me!

I don't actually see a necessity for a paper log. I know, i know... 'It's a RULE'

What is the point?

IMHO there is NO NEED for a paper log. This is an online game. Its design is to be predominantly monitored online.

If any player wants to keep additional records, like pix, scrapbooks, stamps, etc. Cool! I'm just saying everyone does not need to do so if they don't want to.

I thought I was free to disagree with rules (but not violate them). That remains to be seen.

I posted a cache in a very small container that was big enough for trading but still low volume. A log book just takes up trading space. The approver approved it with the body of the page saying there is no log.

One of the 'master cachers' in my area obligingly corrected me by placing a log book in it. So for practical purposes it is not possible to have a no log book cache. I gave up.

Department of redundancy department: Having a paper log book is unnecessary when you have an online logging system.

To me a written log is not important. The online log is adequate and the written log is simply redundant simply redundant.

Am I the lesser man for that?

Yes I do read paper logs. I just don't care to play geocop and judge whose finds are legit and whose are not. I simply don't care if you cheat in a game where the cheating hurts no one.

In fact someone logged a find on one of my neighbors' caches after they learned the cache is missing: See May 5, 2003 log Whats up with that? But its NOT MY BUSINESS. Apparently 2jo's doesn't compare logs either.

Brings up a good question: When a cache goes missing are you obligated to delete all the online logs? Well, you can't very well verify them , can you?

This whole issue is petty.

To call someone irresponsible because they don't share your concerns (perhaps fanaticism?) for a triviality of a game is, at best, juvenile.

Caint never did nothing.

GDAE, Dave

6.4k · September 2, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by ChurchCampDave:

IMHO there is NO NEED for a paper log. This is an online game. Its design is to be predominantly monitored online.

Ahh, newbies!

Geocaching was "designed" to be logged offline, in the logbook at the cache site. Originally the cache descriptions were distributed via usenet newsgroup posting. Later a basic website listing them by state was added. The online logs and all these other bells and whistles came later.

Geocaching is about going out, finding a box with your gps, and signing the logbook. If you want to trade, that's fine too. Instead of everyone trying to change THIS website it into what THEY want, why not just start your own where you can do things as you want? You can make weaponcaching.com. Knives and ammo in a cache earn you 1 smiley, but if you leave a handgun you get 10 smileys.

How about RRcaching.com. Caches are hidden directly on RR tracks. If you find the cache without getting hit by a train, you win.

Armchaircaching.com, just pick caches hard caches you know you will log, eventually, just as soon as you put down the twinkie and the remote control and loose enough weight so you can walk more then 100ft from the car.

"(Mopar is) good to have around and kick. Like an ugly puppy" - Jeremy

2.1k · September 2, 2003

LMAO....

TNLNSL

Brian

As long as you're going to think anyway, think big. -Donald Trump

38.2k · September 2, 2003

quote:
Yes I do read paper logs. I just don't care to play geocop and judge whose finds are legit and whose are not. I simply don't care if you cheat in a game where the cheating hurts no one.

Cheating hurts no one? How about the geocacher who wastes a few hours hunting a cache that is long gone, because someone posted a recent fake find? How about the cache owner who saw a recent find on his cache saying all was well, so moved it to the back of his maintenance rotation?

When your actions waste the precious time of other people it's not harmless.

"You can't make a man by standing a sheep on his hind legs. But by standing a flock of sheep in that position, you can make a crowd of men" - Max Beerbohm

Cache approvers will now delete logs.

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment