+CacheCreatures Posted March 15, 2004 Share Posted March 15, 2004 ... how come one isn't required for caches? This question stems from the generally accepted idiom that states signing the log in a cache is the proof you were there. However, as we all know, this doesn't stop some folks from logging the find, having never been there, anyway. From a logistical standpoint, it would probably be a fairly benign change. When our cache is approved, we'd get the standard email along with a unique ID number. We would then need to place that in the cache (or on the cache, stuck right next to the geocaching blurb). To log the find, the finder would need to enter the ID number, during the logging process, ect... If the changes to the website are problematic, what about issuing your own ID number, and stating in the description that the finder needs to email the number or risk having their log deleted... you get the idea. No doubt this has been covered, so I'm sorry if this is old hat. As this sport grows, so does the chance for it to be taken advantage of. Link to comment
uperdooper Posted March 16, 2004 Share Posted March 16, 2004 id number or code word, plus sign the log. doesn't seen unreasonable to me. i haven't many finds but i have signed the log on every one. adding a code word or id number to an e-mail also shouldn't be a problem. Link to comment
+Mopar Posted March 16, 2004 Share Posted March 16, 2004 (edited) It's old hat, but I don't feel like doing the seach. Basically, it boils down to this. If people want to cheat, they will. The best way to prevent this is to maintain your caches (that means deleting unverified logs). If log cheaters never got away with it, they wouldnt bother doing it. If you assigned a code to the cache, people would still cheat, just like they do with the TBs. You would find geocities sites full of cache codes online in a few weeks. If you don't think someone really found your cache, check the logbook. Edited March 16, 2004 by Mopar Link to comment
+Sagefox Posted March 16, 2004 Share Posted March 16, 2004 I guess I'll weigh in on this: I will shortly have placed our 100th cache. I would not want to see any requirement that would require verifing cache finds nor would I want to receive an email from everyone who visits our caches. In 2.5 years I can't remember seeing even one find-log on our caches that appeared suspicious. Two or three times I've had to email a newby to tell them that in order to qualify for virtual cache finds (one of our 15), they have to email answers to questions but thats about the extent of logging problems. Link to comment
uperdooper Posted March 16, 2004 Share Posted March 16, 2004 after reading the other answers i guess it should be up the cache owner. Link to comment
+bons Posted March 16, 2004 Share Posted March 16, 2004 (edited) I'm looking forward to more rules like this so I can just track my finds in Watcher and quit logging them online altogether. That way the people who really care about numbers and rules can have the database all to themselves. Last I checked, this was not a contest. There is not a prize for first place. It's fun with friends. And last I checked, fun with friends didn't need people to prove everything. If you want to write down little codewords, take pictures, and otherwise gather evidence that you actually had a good time, feel free. Just don't expect me to particpate in your revised version of the game. Edited March 16, 2004 by bons Link to comment
+CacheCreatures Posted March 16, 2004 Author Share Posted March 16, 2004 I'm looking forward to more rules like this so I can just track my finds in Watcher and quit logging them online altogether. That way the people who really care about numbers and rules can have the database all to themselves. Last I checked, this was not a contest. There is not a prize for first place. It's fun with friends. And last I checked, fun with friends didn't need people to prove everything. If you want to write down little codewords, take pictures, and otherwise gather evidence that you actually had a good time, feel free. Just don't expect me to particpate in your revised version of the game. Whoa, didn't mean to ruffle the feathers. Does this mean you never pick up TBs? Link to comment
bug and snake Posted March 16, 2004 Share Posted March 16, 2004 Last I checked, this was not a contest. There is not a prize for first place. It's fun with friends..... Exactly - and this thread is in danger of becoming yet another one about stats. And we all know where that leads - NOWHERE! Link to comment
+CacheCreatures Posted March 16, 2004 Author Share Posted March 16, 2004 Exactly - and this thread is in danger of becoming yet another one about stats. And we all know where that leads - NOWHERE! Nah, I hope not. Its a decent question I think. I think if we followed bons logic all the way out, we'd have to ask why sign the log at all? Why try and prove at all that you found the cache? Link to comment
+bons Posted March 16, 2004 Share Posted March 16, 2004 why sign the log at all? Why try and prove at all that you found the cache? Many people don't. The ONLY reason I sign logs is to share the story of the adventure with my fellow geocachers. I don't care about numbers or official anything. I'm simply sharing my story and updating people about the conditions of the cache. At no point in time do I consider my entry "proof" of anything. It's just part of the story that is the logbook. As far as travel bugs, I only pick up those I care about and I log them as a courtesy to the bug owner and to my fellow cachers. Since the only ID required is part of the bug, there's nothing I have to write down or keep track of (other than the bug and that will be out of my hands within the next two weeks). Link to comment
bug and snake Posted March 16, 2004 Share Posted March 16, 2004 (edited) I think what bons was saying is that he enjoys caching for and of its self. And, I am the same way. I will post a log on here as a form of thanks to the placer and to let others know that the cache is still in place and can be found. If it gets to the point where we need to prove having been there then the thing is just too much hassle. It also becomes a full time job, for those with a lot of caches, to check through e-mails of claimants and then to say 'yeah' or 'nay'..... Some people like that side of the thing - many don't. In some ways it looks like a requirement of this nature is too much like another rule/regulation. Oh, I can see the thought process that you went through to come up with the suggestion - but, purely personally, it's not for me. EDIT - added a couple of commas... Edited March 16, 2004 by bug&snake Link to comment
+CacheCreatures Posted March 16, 2004 Author Share Posted March 16, 2004 (edited) Fair enough. I, actually, completely agree with both of you. The wife and I love nothing more than the hunt. Finding the cache is a very very distance second to actually getting out there, together spending time seeing things we've never seen before. I only brought this up in response to the myriad of complaints lately about fake logs. Thought it might spark some constructive talk rather than constant negativity... Edited March 16, 2004 by CacheCreatures Link to comment
bug and snake Posted March 16, 2004 Share Posted March 16, 2004 Sorry if I sounded critical - just my thoughts on the matter. And, again, purely personal view, I don't give a hang about 'cheaters' - they are not cheating me - only themselves. No different to cheating at solitaire really. Makes them sad, pathetic people in my view. Link to comment
+bons Posted March 16, 2004 Share Posted March 16, 2004 I think the problem you're trying to solve is the wrong one. The issue really isn't with people who log finds when they find their own cache, or find caches multiple times, or who log a find when they didn't find it, or when they log a find when they weren't even on the same continent. Those problems are just an issue between the cache owner and the finder. That's it. The real problem can be summed up in this simple elegant quote from a fellow cacher: Boy we sure spend lots of time worrying about what others do don't we? If you find some logs that look suspicious. E-mail the finder. If you don't get a good answer, e-mail the cache owners. And if you're still not happy, then log a note on the cache expressing your concerns in a polite manner. That's it. If your note gets deleted, well, it's the cache owner's right to make that kind of decision. The problem isn't that the people having the witchhunts don't have enough evidence, the problem is that these people seem to like having witchhunts. Nothing makes them happier than finding some poor cacher they can accuse, try, find guilty, and then make miserable. If they flame some innocents or piss off a cache owner or two, what do they care? They've had their fun. Link to comment
+CacheCreatures Posted March 16, 2004 Author Share Posted March 16, 2004 the problem is that these people seem to like having witchhunts Too true. Complaining for the sake of complaining... B&S, no worries at all. Your point was well taken. Closing this one down before someone decides to fan a fire that doesn't exist. Link to comment
Recommended Posts