- This topic has 18 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
This is not the first time this has come up in this forum but I thought I would mention it again having seen the recent Notes that dartymoor has added to each of his Haytor Down caches:
“Notice from the owner…. It’s thoroughly boring to just read logs that say TFTC or have the same message cut and pasted 16 times.
PLEASE – if you want to show appreciation for these caches, then all I ask is that you write a unique log for each one about your journey, the surroundings, the cache, what song is stuck in your head – anything!
If every log turns into TFTC or cut and paste there’s no encouragement for me to lay more or maintain this series, so please make an effort.”
Well said dartymoor – I couldn’t agree more 😮 !
I think the truth is the many cachers are not bothered about “showing appreciation”. They have no idea of the effort that is required to place a series of caches and they don’t care anyway – it’s all about the numbers now 😡 !
Those of us who place series of caches have made a rod for our own back. We want to attract many cachers to our caches as this gives pleasure to most, however they are becoming increasingly abused by several cachers who just use them as a vehicle to increase their numbers. My recent Skir Hill Trail has attracted many copy and paste logs some of them crass and unwelcome. I have received several emails expressing disgust at what has been written. Worse still I know that some who have logged finds have been nowhere near the cache they have “found” but that is a different topic altogether.
Like dartymoor, I read every log that is written, so if you are a decent and conscientious cacher, please make a note of every cache you find, not just mine and dartymoor’s. Then you will be able to show your appreciation to the cache owner who has taken the trouble to place the cache by writing a meaningful and unique log.
I recently received a lovely thank you email from dartymoor thanking me for a couple of logs I’d posted on his ‘More Ups Than Downs’ Series – which made my day too 🙂
You are both correct in your criticism of grammatical laziness, and I will happily add my name to the list too 😡
(TFTC 😆 )We always love receiving an LB log, so many thanks and keep them coming.
We are not looking for grammatical correctness, just some acknowledgement of the effort made to place any cache and some encouragement to place more. I’m perfectly happy with any constructive criticism and dartymoor said that some of the Skir Hill series were not to his taste, which is perfectly fine and understandable, but the crass copy and paste comments are really not acceptable.
I’ll put my hand up, there has been times where I have used Cut & Paste to put details of why I am out. But I also add details that are relevant to the particular cache to the end of the log.
And I agree that Geocaching for some is Numbers, not the fact you are out in what some people pay £100’s if not £1000’s to come and visit, and it’s on our doorstep.
But your post highlighted something that bugs the hell out of my wife and I.
I use an app called Locus Pro, which among a lot of other things downloads the last 30 logs relating to a cache.
After spending ages hunting for a particular cache, after seeing a log of “Easy Find” dated 2 -3 days before , to then find there is nothing in the cache log .
What’s that all about.TC
I’m not certain that I understand this comment “After spending ages hunting for a particular cache, after seeing a log of “Easy Find” dated 2 -3 days before , to then find there is nothing in the cache log . What’s that all about.”
Could you provide an example maybe?However, it may be another example of some very blatant cheating that seems to be growing. It appears that some finds are being posted when the cacher has not been anywhere near the cache, but just sat at his/her computer 🙁
DD
The second part of your post is what I am on about. Without going back through all my logs and trying to remember which ones they where,which would be difficult. Also, I don’t think it would be helpful to start naming and shaming.
But in one instance I remember well, the log page in the cache had not been signed for 3 months (lots of space for signatures), but on GC.com there was 3 finds in the past month of “Easy Find”If we don’t find a cache we log a DNF, there are 1 or 2 that we have logged multiple DNF’s. There is no shame in it and it can be helpful to the CO and to fellow cachers.
Over the last few months we have done as such and had nice messages from the CO’s thanking us for highlighting it, as they had gone missing.It’s only a game.
🙁 🙁 🙁 You are right – it is only a game, but surely there have to be some rules. Not logging a DNF is one thing, but logging a find on a cache you have been nowhere near – how can that possibly be ok. IMHO it is destroying our hobby/pastime/game whatever you want to call it.
Why should I, or any other CO, spend many hours placing caching for others to log them without leaving their computer or mobile phone. Once again it is the lust for numbers that is causing this problem 🙁 🙁 🙁
Maybe if a few more CO’s would delete online logs if the cache log has not been signed.
A No Signed – No Find policy 🙂I agree, but it means that we need to go and check all the caches, take copies of all the logs and then compare them to the online logs. That really isn’t feasible and the cheats know it. However, I’ve had so many complaints of late, photos of logbooks sent to me – and you would be surprised at some of those who are involved – its so very, very sad 🙁 🙁 🙁
I did once check a written log against the online one, and it was more hassle than it’s worth. The names were not written on the paper log in the same order as the online ones, and cross-checking was laborious and time-consuming. In the process I made a mistake and deleted a perfectly valid online log. I soon received an email from the irate cacher about this. Of course, I apologised profusely and invited the cacher to relog their find, but I think they had the huff by this point and never did. Since then, I haven’t bothered.
It’s all about the numbers – No
Is there something I don’t know
Do CO’s care and use their feet
Fingers hovering o’er Delete?It’s all about the numbers – Yes
I search your hides and leave a mess
I never have a pen you see
So cannot sign the log for ye.Don’t have to go that extra mile
Just to get another smile
So please excuse my Cut & Paste
It’s all because I’m in such hasteGH.
🙂 🙂 Wonderful GH, no fear of a copy & paste log from you! 🙂 🙂
It’s amazing how many experienced cachers go caching without a pen or pencil 😥 ! Not a problem for my caches, even the micros and bisons have pencils these days, although even they seem to go missing 👿 !
Having just replaced some of the logs in the Emily Cache series and having read some of the comments above , I thought I would go through the List against the names on the online log . Now I can understand forgot the pen log as I have done that myself , but will always try and supply a photo as evidence .
So I was amazed how many names are missing from the written log , and some are those with finds in the thousands .
It must be all about the numbers because this set of caches are so easy to find 😕Yes, and some of those are probably known to you as respected cachers 😥 !
In the UK it’s called armchair logging and in the US couch logging. It seems to be growing universally and although GS recognise the problem – “If you digitally log a geocache without meeting these requirements (also known as couch logging), your log can be deleted by either the geocache owner or Geocaching HQ without notice. ” they actually are just not interested 👿 !
So, will you be deleting the online logs for those missing names?
Groundspeak could always move to a digital logging system as do Munzees. No wet smelly log sheets to replace. GH.
The only concerns really are that you never know if there’s a problem with the cache if these phantom finds are logged . I know these logs should be deleted but they know they are cheating so ill let them have there points .
On a lighter note 🙂 who is Kilroy ? Is stamp is everywhere and I mean everywhere , he or even she must do some miles 😆GH – That would be the end of your poems 😥 !
One of the main problems with the phantoms is that other cachers may search for a long time for a missing cache if they think it was found recently – that happened on the Fox Tor hybrid. It also screws up Challenge caches like H&M’s Re-Awakening.
redvanman1971 – I asked that question on the Devon facebook group and, eventually via PM, got an answer. I don’t want to reveal who, but it’s a well known cacher/letterboxer who uses that instead of their caching name.
Not sure that eases your curiosity or makes it worse…
Without the effort involved with replacing log sheets, caches would stay around a lot longer as CO’s lose interest, leading to heavier saturation and more difficulty in finding somewhere to put new ones. I think it’s a useful requirement and a good indicator of an unloved or poorly made/maintained/placed cache.
Without a certain level of ‘churn’, this hobby would get quite boring. It’s sad to see a very old cache be archived, especially when somebody has offered to adopt it but the CO won’t reply, and it causes disappointment to new finders to find a wet pulpy mess and horrid contents/swaps.
But I don’t feel sad when it’s a cache that the owner isn’t prepared to look after or even respond to problems.
Moving pure digital and you might as well just play Munzee instead; after all, what’s the difference?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
