Logbook Quality Control

2.1k · January 10, 2004

It's been discussed before and mentioned again lately, but for those that own caches, are you performing "quality control checks of your logs"? If you are comparing your logbooks to the online cache logs, then you aren't violating the guidelines. The guidelines state:

The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements.

So be sure you are checking your logbooks with those postings on the cache pages.

Edited January 10, 2004 by woodsters

1.7k · January 10, 2004

The only way to do that is to bring a laptop/phone with wireless web connection to the cache, or take the logbook home, or print out all logs and take them to the cache to verify.

A tough thing to do, especially if you have several caches.

2.1k · January 10, 2004

I would say just print the logs out and take them with you...or just write down the names and verify the names....Copy and paste the names into worpad and print them out...

Not tough to do at all and is required...so if you can't do this with all your caches, then you have too many too maintain.....

Edit:typo

Edited January 10, 2004 by woodsters

January 10, 2004

I do quick checks on my caches everytime I visit them, I havn't had an online log not appear in the real logbook but I have had logbook visits not reported on the website

24.7k · January 10, 2004

No. If someone is blatant sure, I'd delete their log. But I'm in it for the online logs. So I don't make a great effort to cross check logs.

Besides we have had a cache maggot in the area stealing caches. Those logs are just gone. That's too bad. 40% or more of our local cache visitors are not logging on line and their comments and their story are lost.

Edited January 10, 2004 by Renegade Knight

January 10, 2004

I really don't think it is that hard, and its worth it I don't want cheaters using me. I agree that it should be part of maintaing you caches

2.1k · January 10, 2004

Well it's written there in the guidelines as quoted. So if you do not check, then you are not properly maintaining your caches. No ifs, ands, or buts.... :tongue:

1.2k · January 10, 2004

I do scaning checks. When I do a maintenance run I flip through the log book and verify that the names sound familiar when I get back to the PC.

January 10, 2004

I do scaning checks. When I do a maintenance run I flip through the log book and verify that the names sound familiar when I get back to the PC.

Thats how I do it

1.7k · January 10, 2004

I went to the page for placing a cache and here is what it says to do after placing it:

Step 5 - Maintain the cache

Once you place the cache, it is your responsibility to maintain the cache and the area around it. You'll need to return as often as you can to ensure that your cache is not impacting the area, and ensure that the cache is in good repair. Once people have visited the cache, inquire about the cache and their opinion of the location. Does the area look disturbed? Are visitors disrupting the landscape in any way? If you have concerns about the location, feel free to move or remove it from the area.

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

The guideline you quoted doesn't say you have to verify each log, just delete those that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements.

It says quality checks of "posts to the cache page" - not checking the physical log on each post.

Edited January 10, 2004 by DustyJacket

9.4k · January 10, 2004

So be sure you are checking your logbooks with those postings on the cache pages.

We have to start using logbooks now? :tongue:

2.1k · January 10, 2004

The guideline you quoted doesn't say you have to verify each log, just delete those that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements.

It says quality checks of "posts to the cache page" - not checking the physical log on each post.

I was quoting from the guidelines.

Part of your responsbility as it states is to remove logs from the cache page that are bogus, conterfeit, etc... How do you determine if a log is bogus or counterfeit? You have to check with the logbook in the cache. So as a cache owner it is your responsibility to ensure the integrity of the postings to the cache page.

3k · January 10, 2004

Great woodsters, you read the guidelines but what are you trying to get at? Looks like you're trolling to me. :tongue:

2.1k · January 10, 2004

Is that an attack umc? You calling me a troll? :tongue:

I was making a point on it as some of the other threads about logbooks now required. It has also been brought up in the "Idea" thread about cheaters. It's nothing new. I was looking over some of the guidelines and it stated that. Thought I would pass it along.

3k · January 10, 2004

Is that an attack umc? You calling me a troll?

I was making a point on it as some of the other threads about logbooks now required. It has also been brought up in the "Idea" thread about cheaters. It's nothing new. I was looking over some of the guidelines and it stated that. Thought I would pass it along.

Not so much calling you a 'troll' but a troller? :tongue:

Maybe I will go read the other threads to better understand your approach in this one.

2.1k · January 10, 2004

Maybe I will go read the other threads to better understand your approach in this one.

Now that's a better idea than calling people names....

9.4k · January 10, 2004

Maybe I will go read the other threads to better understand your approach in this one.

Now that's a better idea than calling people names....

I haven't seen Woody post this much since he was a noob!

2.1k · January 10, 2004

Going for the 2000 club Sax.... lol

9.4k · January 10, 2004

Going for the 2000 club Sax.... lol

Hmmm...maybe it's time to close the MM club after all... :tongue:

January 10, 2004

Couldn't you just do a pocket query on your own cache and then you would have the logs on your PDA when you visited? Instead of printing them all out, or bringing a laptop.

I wonder how deep you need to go in order to make sure you got all the logs in the pocket query?

Anyone know?

9.4k · January 10, 2004

The pocket query would only have the 5 most recent logs

Edited January 10, 2004 by Team GPSaxophone

January 10, 2004

No. I never cross-check the logbook with the online logs. I trust that players will not cheat (and don't really care if they do). For me, playing policeman is not part of the game. If I did come across an obviously bogus find (hasn't happened yet) I guess I would delete it. I do not believe I am contravening any guidelines, which simply advise me the quality control of my caches are my responsibility, as opposed to the resp/h1>bility of Geocaching.com.

Edited January 10, 2004 by seneca

January 10, 2004

Knock knock.....who's there.....its the Geocaching police here to inspect your log books. :tongue: Will I maintain my caches yes, will I take the chance that I accidentally call someone a liar because they forgot to write down the secret number\word no.

2.1k · January 10, 2004

No. I never cross-check the logbook with the online logs. I trust that players will not cheat (and don't really care if they do). For me, playing policeman is not part of the game. If I did come across an obviously bogus find (hasn't happened yet) I guess I would delete it. I do not believe I am contravening any guidelines, which simply advise me the quality control of my caches are my responsibility, as opposed to the resp/h1>bility of Geocaching.com.

It doesn' say it's your responsibility and not GC's ...it says the responsibility of your listing....

So by listing a cache it's your responsibilty to check the quality control of your cache pages...

2.1k · January 10, 2004

Knock knock.....who's there.....its the Geocaching police here to inspect your log books. Will I maintain my caches yes, will I take the chance that I accidentally call someone a liar because they forgot to write down the secret number\word no.

Doesn't say anything about writing down secret numbers or words...that's a different topic. It says you are to perform quality control of your cache pages...you only get to call them a liar once you do that and you see they didn't sign your logbook, but logged it online. Then again, Iwouldn't call them a liar. I would simply delete it.

9.4k · January 10, 2004

<snip> they didn't sign your logbook, but logged it online. Then again, Iwouldn't call them a liar. I would simply delete it.

I would send an email politely asking them why they didn't sign the logbook. It's possible they didn't have a pen with them, or it ran out of ink, the sun was in their eyes and they dropped a fly ball meaning the UBS miss the World Series yet again (sorry, Carleenp).

I would also ask them to describe the location and the cache. If they can do that to my satisfaction, I won't delete their log.

1.3k · January 10, 2004

Left a online note this week in the local TB hotel as I dropped of a TB and dis a virgin TB for virgin 2003 geocoin swap.

Didn't sign the logbook. I had been kneeling in the snow long enough thank you.

Someone please delete the note that indicated the cache is still there and in good condition because I failed to properly follow section 4, rule 13, paragraph 2.

2.1k · January 10, 2004

bons...a note is different. you aren't claiming a find on it. Although the owner should check that note to ensure it's within guidelines...lol

Sax, yes I agree, if there is enough info given that would convince me, then I may allow it. I've been in the pouring rain, snow, heat, mosquitos and etc and have signed the log book every time. At least you can make out a "Woodsters Outdoors" on it. It may only say something like 'Found, TNLN, Woodsters Outdoors", but I managed to sign the log.

If there was no writing utensil inside and I didn't have one, then I would probably make a note on my online log of that. At least the owner can go and check on it and put something to write with in it. If there are pens and pencils that you placed in their previously, then it may raise an eyebrow.

1.3k · January 10, 2004

True. And if all this distrust continues, that's the most do.

I'll say that I signed the logbook with the proper writing instrument (#2 pencil sharpened at a 30 degree angle), left pre-approved swag (that was too large to choke a baby, too dull to scratch skin, and otherwise deemed safe by the swag committee), took swag (that had a note on it granting approval for the swag to be removed from the cache otherwise it would be stealing), moved TBs (that I've been given written permission by the TB owners to move), but I won't claim to have found it. Then after the note has been approved by the local admin to be added to the cache page other cachers can wonder if the note was faked simply because a fair witness didn't follow me to the cache site and observe this occurring.

I also should remember to check in with the land manager when I get to the park and check out when I'm done caching. I have two photo IDs and my fingerprints are on file with my official geocaching background check if they need to verify them.

January 10, 2004

Gotta love it!! Now bons is on to something. Fingerprint readers!! Or how about DNA samples. Ease up my friend.

Edited January 10, 2004 by DeerChaser & Springchik

2.1k · January 10, 2004

See you are saying note...a note would not require that. A note is used when relaying information and is not cliamed as a find. Who said anything about local admin? I think you are taking it all out of context. Plain and simple. Cache owner checks the cache pages for bogus, conterfeit, etc entries. They remove the ones that are. Would a cache owner delete a note? I ahve no idea and that's not the issue. It's counterfeiting and bogus stuff. How d oyou check it? With the logbook at the cache. It's simple to do. No one is calling anyone a liar, they are verifying and ensuring "quality control". It's no more than a person having to convince admin that they can place a cache there. If they say no, you can't are they calling you a liar? If they say you can't maintain a cache that far away, are they calling you a liar?

If you are not going to follow the guidelines on placing a cache, then why place one at all?Heck why even place a cache that you aren't going to take care of properly? Just to say you own one? Ok so you place one, then what?

2.1k · January 10, 2004

Gotta love it!! Now bons is on to something. Fingerprint readers!! Or how about DNA samples. Ease up my friend.

On site cameras!

6.4k · January 10, 2004

Gotta love it!! Now bons is on to something. Fingerprint readers!! Or how about DNA samples. Ease up my friend.

On site cameras!

you're close, woodsters. When I check on micros, its usually easy to make a macro shot or 2 on the digital camera to compare later. On traditional sized logs, I'll jot down in a little notebook the names in the logbook since the last time I visited, and then compare them when I get home. How hard is that? I like to read the onsite logs as much as the online ones. Some people barely write anything im the book, saving it all for online, while there are others out there that write great logs in the look, and little or not at all online.

Edited January 10, 2004 by Mopar

2.1k · January 10, 2004

Thankyou Mopar! It is easy. If you are getting too many visitors to jot down some names or print out some logs, then you should be doing routine maintenance a lot sooner. And then if you can't keep up with it all, then you got too many caches. At least that is how I feel. Not going as far as Criminal went about virtual vs trad caches, but I think responsiblity of the owner is a lot. And that you should treat them with respect. After all, if you aren't respecting your cache, then others won't respect it either.

3k · January 10, 2004

Thankyou Mopar! It is easy. If you are getting too many visitors to jot down some names or print out some logs, then you should be doing routine maintenance a lot sooner. And then if you can't keep up with it all, then you got too many caches. At least that is how I feel. Not going as far as Criminal went about virtual vs trad caches, but I think responsibility of the owner is a lot. And that you should treat them with respect. After all, if you aren't respecting your cache, then others won't respect it either.

Man I hate to say this but I agree with the too many caches thing.

How many is too many? I'm sure its different for everyone but there has to be a reasonable limit doesn't there? I know I set mine at 10 caches and I'm only at 6 right now of which 2 are lame virts. Those keep me plenty busy so when I see people with 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70 etc caches hidden I have to question how they can possibly maintain that many.

At that point its a bigger issue than just logbooks.

24.7k · January 10, 2004

I'm more likely to take the time to scan the logs and post them online. I think it's a fitting end to an archived cache.

1.6k · January 10, 2004

Thankyou Mopar! It is easy. If you are getting too many visitors to jot down some names or print out some logs, then you should be doing routine maintenance a lot sooner. And then if you can't keep up with it all, then you got too many caches. At least that is how I feel. Not going as far as Criminal went about virtual vs trad caches, but I think responsibility of the owner is a lot. And that you should treat them with respect. After all, if you aren't respecting your cache, then others won't respect it either.

Man I hate to say this but I agree with the too many caches thing.

How many is too many? I'm sure its different for everyone but there has to be a reasonable limit doesn't there? I know I set mine at 10 caches and I'm only at 6 right now of which 2 are lame virts. Those keep me plenty busy so when I see people with 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70 etc caches hidden I have to question how they can possibly maintain that many.

At that point its a bigger issue than just logbooks.

UMC, I don't know much, but in my opinion, I think the people with lots of hides probably just put themselves on the watch list for their cache, and then only visit once or twice a year for routine and then, maybe only when there's a call for maintenance...

Like I said, I don't know much, but I think I have a pretty good idea of how most people do this...

2.1k · January 10, 2004

I receive an email everytime someone visits my cache. I didn't make it do that, it does it automatically. I assume it happens that way to everyone. Perhaps there's a way to stop it, I don't know.

On your mention of once or twice a year.....I think it also depends on the amount of traffic you are getting in between. If you are seeing a few a month, then I could tend to agree somewhat with visits when made notified. But if you are seeing 5 or more a week then you might need to make trips sooner than every six months or so.

Perhaps a time limit should not be put on when to perform maintenance, but rather the issue of traffic.

As far as to what many do. Many normally place their cache and only go back to if there is a problem noted and then even then many don't. I've read a log for a cache about 20-30 miles from here this morning online. I saw where several people have posted recently that it needs a new log book and needs to be cleaned. I took a look at the owner and they only had a few finds and they were all back in 2002. Obviously if he probably wasn't caching in the last couple years, then he hasn't probably checked his cache that long ago either. But I imagine that he could of.

1.4k · January 10, 2004

No, I don't routinely verify that all on-line logs have a corresponding log in the logbooks. If geocaching were a competitive sport, I might, but since we all know stats don't matter, I don't. :tongue:

I just don't think there are enough bogus find logs to be worth the effort.

January 10, 2004

How about each cach container has a serial # provided by the approvers when a cache is approved. This is then written inside or out side the container then you have to take a pic of it and the signed log book together to get an approved find and it has to be legible.

hmm*** I have no camera, no pda, no printer, no uploadable gps.

I can't get an approved find, so no finding for me

I can't down load or print logs to verify them--will have to enter

each one by hand on paper

Or spend more money while unemployed to have a little fun ---no thanks

January 11, 2004

I do cache maintenence (have to do some tomorrow, as a matter of fact, 2 DNFs in a row... have to investigate), but I don't check to see if the names on the cache log match the names on the online logs, is that what you mean? I guess I am violating that guideline. doesn't matter to me, though. :tongue:

5.3k · January 11, 2004

So be sure you are checking your logbooks with those postings on the cache pages.

Thanks very much! I am always glad to take direction on how to maintain my caches from one with such extensive experience hiding and maintaining them himself. We are lucky indeed to have a resource like you available to help us do things the proper way.

24.7k · January 11, 2004

Having thought about this some more I think that I'm going to start putting quality control strips in my caches. The ones that say "Inspected by #12" That should cover the quality control issue.

Edited January 11, 2004 by Renegade Knight

2.1k · January 11, 2004

Man, point something out that's in the guidelines already and people get angry...geez. I didn't write the guidelines, I just noticed that it was in there. I happen to agree with it.

ironman....that is a totally different subject. The lid code thing does not require anything extra that a normal cacher can not do.

mozartman....yep you would be vioating the guidelines...lol

fizzymagic.... read my first line of this posting...I didn't write the guidelines...it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that if you don't follow the guidelines that you are violating them...that's between you and them...I just posted it as informative...

January 11, 2004

ironman....that is a totally different subject. The lid code thing does not require anything extra that a normal cacher can not do.

If a camera pic with the code and the signature are not used how do you know if someone didn't give me the code because they knew that I didn't want to go thriugh the troublle ot do the work and Just gave it to me. I still cheated without positive proof.

Edit: actually reviewing my statement That was a subject of a similar but different thread. Now I have to figure out how often is enough to go out and physically check the logs .Every 3 months , oncea month once a week or after each post.

Edited January 11, 2004 by ironman114

January 11, 2004

Are false logs really that big of a problem to have all of this concern? :tongue:

January 11, 2004

No matter what we do there are some people that are just going to cheat. Like they say locks on doors will only keep honest people out. The only person that somebody is cheating with a fake log entry is themselves, don't let it upset you so much. This is supposed to be fun. I also play golf, my brother cheats at it all of the time but it doesn't bother me to the point that I won't play with him anymore. So is this an example of how it is supposed to work?

Email

[Hider} I noticed that you did not sign the log when you found my cache, can you tell me why?

[Finder] In all of the exitement of finding it I forgot but thanks for the hide.

[Hider] Can you tell me something about where the cache was so that I am sure that you found it.

[Finder} It was hidden very well under a log.

[Hider] Can you describe the log.

[Finder] Well it was kind of a brown log.

[Hider] Sorry not good enough, I am going to delete your log entry.

2.1k · January 11, 2004

pictures could be faked too...there's no total way of stopping it without having a GC card with a magnetic strip and a cache container with a reader in it...lol It's just to put a hamper on the cheating. People will cheat if they really want to.

In my opinion, checking the logs would determine the amount of traffic it gets. I would say at a mimimum with even no finds that it should be checked twice a year. That way you can also make sure it's still there and not impacting the surroundings and some of the other things. If you are getting 5, 10 or more visitors a week, then you might want to check it probably at a minimum of once a month.

First of all a cache owner that has been around for a while and has done some caching themselves are going to recognize names. For instance 90% of the people who have signed my logs, I have seen their names in other logbooks. I have no doubt that they actually signed the book if their name is in the online log. I will still probably check it though, whenever I go to do maintenance.

2.1k · January 11, 2004

Are false logs really that big of a problem to have all of this concern?

Must be, they've placed it in the guidelines and they don't like to add things to the guidelines at all. So it must really, really be a problem.

January 11, 2004

egads....

I own several caches, and haven't cross-refernced logs, and have absolutely no intention of starting now...

I get the emails of who has found and logged the cache on-line, and almost all of them are geocachers I recognize, either form having met them in person at events, or from seeing a pattern of their logs on other caches on my watch list.

If there is some true concern about a 'spoofed' log or something, then I could see doing the cross-referencing, but otherwise what's the point? You'd be checking that people you know are geocachers and have no reason to lie about finding the cache have indeed found the cache? talk about lack of trust in your fellow cachers...

I think you are taking an overly literalistic interpretation of the guidlines there...

I think making sure the container is in good condition, etc. is a far more important thing to be worried about, rather than if this reputable local cacher LIED to me when they said they found my cache...

Keep in mind, this is supposed to be FUN! I think some people are starting to forget that...

Re-engage lurk...

Logbook Quality Control

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