Purpose of verification

[nesdon]

Re: a thorny thread running in the general forum about duplicate verification as a red flag. One of the admins suggested that the originator of the thorn, might not understand the purpose of verification.

 

I'm not sure I do. Are ther cases where a cache owner will challenge another player's claim of a find?

 

Nesdon

"Sacred cows make the best hamburger."

Sam Clemens

[+Prime Suspect]

quote:

---

Originally posted by nesdon:

Re: a thorny thread running in the general forum about duplicate verification as a red flag. One of the admins suggested that the originator of the thorn, might not understand the purpose of verification.

---

 

AFAIC, a log book is all the verification needed, for most physical caches. The cache in question certainly doesn't fall in any kind of "special needs" catagory.

 

I know of a cache in Tulsa that has been accidently found by a lot of non-cacher. It has one of the most fun log books I've read through. And some of the accidental finders even took the trouble to enter an on-line log. It would be too bad if those logs had been deleted, just because they didn't know they had to write down some 15 digit number and email it to someone. JMO.

 

[+Renegade Knight]

A cache is nothing more and nothing less than you make it. There is nothing wrong with a 15 digit, or 200 digit verification code.

 

Nor is there anything wrong with a log book for those who like to sing them and dont' like to log online.

 

Somewhere between 15 digits and 200 though I'd not visit the cache. But that's the thing, as a finder I have a choice to play or not play. Still the cache owner sets the rules.

 

Rules can only enforce the online logs.

 

Wherever you go there you are.

[+Faderaven]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Prime Suspect:

quote:

---

Originally posted by nesdon:

Re: a thorny thread running in the general forum about duplicate verification as a red flag. One of the admins suggested that the originator of the thorn, might not understand the purpose of verification.

---

 

AFAIC, a log book is all the verification needed, for most physical caches. The cache in question certainly doesn't fall in any kind of "special needs" catagory.

 

I know of a cache in Tulsa that has been accidently found by a lot of non-cacher. It has one of the most fun log books I've read through. And some of the accidental finders even took the trouble to enter an on-line log. It would be too bad if those logs had been deleted, just because they didn't know they had to write down some 15 digit number and email it to someone. JMO.

 

http://img.Groundspeak.com/user/3608_2800.gif

---

 

Let my heart be still a moment and this mystery explore

[+The Leprechauns]

There have been plenty of threads in which the finds of "ubercachers" have been challenged. ("There is no way that someone can find 30 caches in one day...") Well, there IS a way, it requires being organized, prepared and in good shape. And you can look in each of the logbooks to prove that the person was there.

 

I have personally had one of my finds challenged by someone who was frustrated because they couldn't find the cache. Said there was no way that I could've found it. They went on to demand that the "missing" cache be archived. (It was, but then I adopted it... hee hee) I know that EVERY one of my traditional cache finds can be verified from my signature in the logbook. (Well, except for one from last weekend, where the ammo box was frozen solid into the ice!)

 

The opposite is also true: If it weren't for logbooks, more people would claim online finds when they didn't actually find the cache, but looked really hard. Not everyone has your level of honesty, Nesdon!

 

x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x

I was formerly employed by the Department of Redundancy Department, but I don't work there anymore.

[+briansnat]

Unfortunately some loonie kazoonies will fake finds. Not that the find count is a big deal, but most cache owners prefer that only people who actually find the cache log it as such, for a number of good reasons.

 

A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away. -Barry Goldwater

[Kiwi cruiser]

So...Who are you kidding if you post a false find...does it make YOU feel any better?

The pleasure/satisfaction comes from really finding the cache...surely?

 

Eagles may soar but weasels never get sucked into jet air intakes.

[+MaxEntropy]

Requiring an entry into a log book is just a way to keep the game tidy. If we didn't have them, there would be more fake finds which frustrates future cachers if the cache disappears before the fake find was logged.

As for additional information required. It's up to the cache owner, but I don't see much need for it. If someone want's to fake a find, it really their business as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else down the line.

 

Mickey

Max Entropy

More than just a name, a lifestyle.

[smashsquatch]

there are, of course, trolls under every bridge.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

hey... what's that smell?

[nesdon]

so, if I have a cache, and I notice someone has logged online who has not logged in my cache logbook, can I post a nah nah nana nah about them, or even have their log expunged?

 

But, what is then to prevent the troll cache owner from spuriouisly deleting the finds of their nemises?

 

Maybe there should be a rogues gallery, a Groundspeak forum where those caught defiling the game though cheating can be publically pilloried.

 

I have taken this to be like golf, where the cheater is duly punished by having to bear their guilt. I presume the vast makority of players are in this for a good walk enriched.

 

I also cherish the generosity of placing a cache, sharing a favorite spot, offering treats to strangers. Oh, show me the love!!

 

Nesdon

"Sacred cows make the best hamburger."

Sam Clemens

[+Markwell]

It's already happening to one of our posters. A cacher didn't like something the finder said, so he deleted his legitimate finds.

 

As long as a seeker complies with all the rules I put down as a cache hider, I would never delete their legitimate find out of spite. That's just bad form, and an all-out icky thing to do.

 

Markwell

Chicago Geocaching

[+rayt333]

Humm, I am not saying I would do this but it would make me think long and hard.

 

Maybe if a cache owner removed my "found" and it was real then maybe I would go back and remove the cache so I could prove I had actually found it, if I had it in my posession then I must have found it, right?

[+Sissy-n-CR]

I think verification should not only be something for the cache owner, but the community as a whole.

 

If you've claimed a find, but the cache owner deletes your legitimate find log, you could go back and take a picture of the cache, contents, logbook, the whole nine yards and post it on your profile page as proof that you found the log. In a case like this a physical log is not really needed, but it sure is kind of a pain in the rear.

 

You still lose the find count, but you can vindcate yourself to the community.

 

Another thing about a physical log is that a third party could verify a visit by noting a person's signature. This is something more than a "He Said, She Said" thing. That third person could say "Yep" or "Nope" at confirming a find. This is not something easily done via an email-type verification.

 

Verification is only for proof that you found what you claim to have found. Physical logbooks are a step in the right direction against unscrupulous cache owners.

 

Verification shouldn't be a hoop to jump through to prove you've actually been there.

 

CR

 

[+IV_Warrior]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sissy-n-CR:

 

Another thing about a physical log is that a third party could verify a visit by noting a person's signature. This is something more than a "He Said, She Said" thing. That third person could say "Yep" or "Nope" at confirming a find. This is not something easily done via an email-type verification.

 

---

 

I like the idea of photographing the cache if in a case where a legitimate log was deleted. If someone is low enough to delete a legit find log on one of their caches, a logbook isn't going to help much. I say this because said person would probably also remove the page from the logbook then say "Check the logbook, he's not in it, that's why I deleted the find...."

 

I'm lost. I've gone to find myself. If I should happen to get back before I return, please ask me to wait.

[+Renegade Knight]

quote:

---

Originally posted by nesdon:

so, if I have a cache, and I notice someone has logged online who has not logged in my cache logbook, can I post a nah nah nana nah about them, or even have their log expunged?

---

My son has had that problem. His online log was being deleted because when I had signed the logbook I neglected to point out that I was accompanied by by son, daughter, etc. etc.

 

in addition my daughter has changed her online name.

 

My other daughter would have 200+ finds with me but has no online name at all. Someday she will.

 

Sure you can delete their logs but you could be deleting legitimte finds also.

 

Wherever you go there you are.

[+briansnat]

quote:

---

It's already happening to one of our posters. A cacher didn't like something the finder said, so he deleted his legitimate finds.

 

As long as a seeker complies with all the rules I put down as a cache hider, I would never delete their legitimate find out of spite. That's just bad form, and an all-out icky thing to do.

---

 

Yeah, I've been following that story . I think it is pretty low of that cache owner to delete legit finds, no matter what his beef is with the guy. In this case, it happens to be a lot of finds, because this cache owner is a prolific hider. But to me he nothing but a pathetic, spiteful and small man and when I see any posts from him in these forums I can't take anything he has to say seriously.

 

A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away. -Barry Goldwater

[+georgeandmary]

quote:

---

Originally posted by rayt333:

Humm, I am not saying I would do this but it would make me think long and hard.

 

Maybe if a cache owner removed my "found" and it was real then maybe I would go back and remove the cache so I could prove I had actually found it, if I had it in my posession then I must have found it, right?

---

 

I would threaten to go back and take a photo of the cache, and provide complete and detailed descritions on how to find the cache in local forums.

 

Nothing hiders hate more than having their cache compromised.

 

I would log it again, and again, and again, until they got tired of deleting the find. I'm quite stubborn.

 

What would be better would be to create a script that would check for my log on that cache page and then when ever it was deleted it would automatically log the find again.... now that would be cool.

 

george

 

Pedal until your legs cramp up and then pedal some more.