Couch Cachers

[+weathernowcast]

I would think that a sting of some sort would be in order here.

 

Wait! Never mind... that's crazy talk.

 

I would say ignore it, don't sweat it, and/or pass around surveillance photos at the next geo-bash. Mostly the first two though and really not at all the last.

 

IMO, that type of cheating at geocaching doesn't really hurt anyone (except if there are people who are emotionally invested in a different points system or those who search for a cache that isn't there based on a find log). Despite my snide comments, I sympathize with the frustration that you must feel when you find out that someone (especially someone respected locally) is logging caches without finding them; the best thing for sanity though would seem to just say "I can control how I play the game and can influence how others do by my attitude and example. However, I can't dictate anything to others and to do so could have negative consequences to a fairly precariously balanced hobby so better to move on and enjoy the places I visit and the fact that I'm sharing places I love with others."

 

As much as I can't help myself from teasing you bittsen for things like suggesting stings or other comments, I want you to know that I do appreciate your activity on the forums and also empathize with your frustration with people not participating in the game when you're working to do it right. Hope you can move beyond it and not have it mar your appreciation of the thousands who do play it right!

 

Your humor in this post is not lost on me.

 

As I said previously, this has nothing to do with my caches. It's just "chatter" at the moment. My curiousity was piqued as to what others would do in this situation.

Personally, the temptation to out the person would be almost too tempting but I realize these days that some would consider me a lesser person, and somehow actually take pity upon the person who was busted. Human nature being as interesting, and illogical as it is.

I would add that my scenario indicated a "well known" person, not a "respected" one. In my hypothetical scenario, this person may have been caught cheating in other ways previously.

 

But it's all hypothetical. I am in no way connected to anyone (as far as I know) who has engaged in couch caching. To the best of my knowledge my cache logs coincide with the signatures on them.

 

Hypothetically I have experienced the same thing only to find out that the cache at hand had half the people not sign the log! how could this be? Were all my friends liars? or half of them anyway? Instead of confronting anyone, I did a little research. Turned out their were two cache containers. The first was thought to have gone missing and the second was placed by the owner as a replacement. From that point on half the people found one of the containers and half found the other.

[+bittsen]

 

Hypothetically I have experienced the same thing only to find out that the cache at hand had half the people not sign the log! how could this be? Were all my friends liars? or half of them anyway? Instead of confronting anyone, I did a little research. Turned out their were two cache containers. The first was thought to have gone missing and the second was placed by the owner as a replacement. From that point on half the people found one of the containers and half found the other.

 

That would be understandable but the hypothetical situation I was speaking of is that the hypothetical cacher has a hypothetical habit of hypothetically logging caches that he has hypothetically never visited. And, hypothetically, been found to have been hypothetically cheating in the past. Hypothetically speaking, of course.

[knowschad]

Hypothetically, my neighbor's cat is a tabby.

[+bittsen]

Hypothetically, my neighbor's cat is a tabby.

Yet again, you disrepect the participants in the thread.

 

[+DragonsWest]

Hypothetically, my neighbor's cat is a tabby.

Yet again, you disrepect the participants in the thread.

 

 

I can't stop wondering if that's the famous Schrödinger's Cache I've been hearing so much about - you know, the one with the cat inside?

[+Sagefox]

 

There are some practices in this sport that many of us see as silly, but are harmless. Logging phony finds isn't one of them.

 

I agree. True armchair logging really irks me. It is just too difficult for me to agree with those that say this is a harmless activity or that we should ignore it when our geoconstitution requires log maintenance by the cache owner and, more importantly, it is so clearly wrong. (And no definition of wrong is needed here. We ALL know it is wrong.)

 

In the case of the OP's non-signing logger I wonder if that guy, somewhere along the line, decided that he didn't need or want to sign the logs. Not signing doesn't mean he didn't visit site and open the container it just means he failed to provide the written proof. This is NOT armchair logging.

 

Maybe when this guy was confronted, as OP suggests, he took it hard and dug in his heels. Confronting is very difficult to do correctly if our intention is to point out a behavior and have someone accept our point of view and change their behavior. Then again, some folks are very touchy and the best confrontation tactics might set them off. I don't believe, however, that people should avoid attempts to find out why the logs are not being signed.

[+bittsen]

 

There are some practices in this sport that many of us see as silly, but are harmless. Logging phony finds isn't one of them.

 

I agree. True armchair logging really irks me. It is just too difficult for me to agree with those that say this is a harmless activity or that we should ignore it when our geoconstitution requires log maintenance by the cache owner and, more importantly, it is so clearly wrong. (And no definition of wrong is needed here. We ALL know it is wrong.)

 

In the case of the OP's non-signing logger I wonder if that guy, somewhere along the line, decided that he didn't need or want to sign the logs. Not signing doesn't mean he didn't visit site and open the container it just means he failed to provide the written proof. This is NOT armchair logging.

 

Maybe when this guy was confronted, as OP suggests, he took it hard and dug in his heels. Confronting is very difficult to do correctly if our intention is to point out a behavior and have someone accept our point of view and change their behavior. Then again, some folks are very touchy and the best confrontation tactics might set them off. I don't believe, however, that people should avoid attempts to find out why the logs are not being signed.

 

First, remember, this is hypothetical...

 

I read that there is no smiley if the log isn't signed on a physical cache. If the culprit (hypothetical) decided to stop signing logs, then he shouldn't be logging them online.

I am sure a check of other logs would indicate that the culprit does indeed still sign logs so that could negate that possibility.

[+gof1]

Hypothetically, my neighbor's cat is a tabby.

Yet again, you disrepect the participants in the thread.

 

 

I can't stop wondering if that's the famous Schrödinger's Cache I've been hearing so much about - you know, the one with the cat inside?

 

So, if I understand this correctly the question is if the cat in the cache has eaten the hamster, correct?

[+Von-Horst]

There are some caches that are only possible to do by couch caching, such as 'Four Windows' GCF55A.

 

What do people think about such caches?

 

Is it wrong to do them?

 

If so, why - you're not cheating by couch caching in this instance as there is no other way do do the cache...

 

Mike

[+GeoJunkie]

what do you mean by couch caching

 

Couch caching is recording finds without having ever visited (or at least found) the cache. The easiest way to discover a someone is couch caching is by the absence of a signature in logs in caches they claim to have found.

 

For the record, just because someone's current online name doesn't appear in the physical log doesn't mean they didn't find the cache. For me, if you audited any of my logs before February of this year, you'd find my name isn't in there because I changed it!

[+GeoJunkie]

There are some caches that are only possible to do by couch caching, such as 'Four Windows' GCF55A.

 

What do people think about such caches?

 

Is it wrong to do them?

 

If so, why - you're not cheating by couch caching in this instance as there is no other way do do the cache...

 

Mike

 

If they were approved, then they're a legitimate smiley. I mean, you won't get one of those approved any more, but since TPTB allowed these to stay, then go for it!

 

Personally, I think I'm going to have to log these, simply because I can't leave caches that I can get to unfound!

 

Of course, when I started caching I also did a bunch of locationless caches, because I loved the challenge of getting finds in new ways. That style of cache is unheard of any more.

[+Unkle Fester]

what do you mean by couch caching

 

Couch caching is recording finds without having ever visited (or at least found) the cache. The easiest way to discover a someone is couch caching is by the absence of a signature in logs in caches they claim to have found.

 

For the record, just because someone's current online name doesn't appear in the physical log doesn't mean they didn't find the cache. For me, if you audited any of my logs before February of this year, you'd find my name isn't in there because I changed it!

A name change is understandable, but not the issue. If someone asked you, you would simply provide your other name and an explination. That's fine, but the trend would not continue... it couldn't be considered a trend because under one name or another you still signed the log.

 

But what the OP is referring to is a hypothetical someone who finds some caches and puts their name in the log, doesn't find others but logs them online as if they did - I would imagine to boost numbers to make themselves look better, however pathetic that is - I don't know, I'm not in their head.

 

The point being: If you, or others in your area notice this trend, what do you do? (added effect for emphasis, not emotion)

 

This isn't about virts that are meant to be armchaired, but could involve virts that are meant to be visited but are not.

 

And why have a virt if it needs to be armchaired? What's the point? this could be another thread.

[+wimseyguy]

 

Hypothetically I have experienced the same thing only to find out that the cache at hand had half the people not sign the log! how could this be? Were all my friends liars? or half of them anyway? Instead of confronting anyone, I did a little research. Turned out their were two cache containers. The first was thought to have gone missing and the second was placed by the owner as a replacement. From that point on half the people found one of the containers and half found the other.

 

That would be understandable but the hypothetical situation I was speaking of is that the hypothetical cacher has a hypothetical habit of hypothetically logging caches that he has hypothetically never visited. And, hypothetically, been found to have been hypothetically cheating in the past. Hypothetically speaking, of course.

 

Hypothetically you should contact the hypothetical owners of these caches and let them make their own hypothetical maintenance decisions. Nothing else that anyone says about this situation in this thread really matters-hypothetically speaking.

[+sbell111]

what do you mean by couch caching

Couch caching is recording finds without having ever visited (or at least found) the cache. The easiest way to discover a someone is couch caching is by the absence of a signature in logs in caches they claim to have found.

For the record, just because someone's current online name doesn't appear in the physical log doesn't mean they didn't find the cache. For me, if you audited any of my logs before February of this year, you'd find my name isn't in there because I changed it!

A name change is understandable, but not the issue. If someone asked you, you would simply provide your other name and an explination. That's fine, but the trend would not continue... it couldn't be considered a trend because under one name or another you still signed the log.

While it is not specically the OP's hypothetical issue, it does speak to those responses that suggested that the logs should be deleted without any communication with the logger.

[+Jeep_Dog]

There are some caches that are only possible to do by couch caching, such as 'Four Windows' GCF55A.

 

What do people think about such caches?

 

Is it wrong to do them?

 

If so, why - you're not cheating by couch caching in this instance as there is no other way do do the cache...

 

Mike

 

Perhaps because it is a virtual a place to where some cachers have been? To you a "couch cache," to others a virtual at a place to which they have actually been....

[Dinoprophet]

There are some caches that are only possible to do by couch caching, such as 'Four Windows' GCF55A.

 

What do people think about such caches?

 

Is it wrong to do them?

 

If so, why - you're not cheating by couch caching in this instance as there is no other way do do the cache...

 

Mike

 

If they were approved, then they're a legitimate smiley. I mean, you won't get one of those approved any more, but since TPTB allowed these to stay, then go for it!

I agree. It was approved as is, it has been allowed to remain, and the cache owner will allow it.

Personally, I think I'm going to have to log these, simply because I can't leave caches that I can get to unfound!

That, I won't do. I won't find a cache if I don't like its placement.

Of course, when I started caching I also did a bunch of locationless caches, because I loved the challenge of getting finds in new ways. That style of cache is unheard of any more.

As caches, yes, they're unheard of. Waymarking is the same concept, but set up appropriately for the game. Giving coordinates to a category of objects never made sense, but it was the only way it could be done here.

[+PirateKatz]

I have yet to place a cache, so this probably a bit of a silly question but...

 

Do cache owners routinely audit their logbooks vs. what was posted on the webpage? It just seems like it would be an exercise in futility since hardly any logbooks are actually filled out sequentially, illegible due to moisture damage, changed names, etc.

 

I guess I just don't understand why anyone would lie about finding a cache. It's not like you win a prize for getting to a certain number and there will always be somebody with more finds than you. It's kind of like what my Drill Sergeant said many years ago in basic training to those who faked their way through PT -- "you're only cheating yourself".

[+Sagefox]

There are some caches that are only possible to do by couch caching, such as 'Four Windows' GCF55A.

 

What do people think about such caches?

 

Is it wrong to do them?

 

If so, why - you're not cheating by couch caching in this instance as there is no other way do do the cache...

 

Mike

 

Yes, that is an official couch cache and, as others have noted, it was allowed when it was published. I logged that cache and it was fun at the time the same way the locationless caches were fun. Some of the locationless and even some regular caches allowed and encouraged multiple logging. I've done six multiple logs and maybe 3 or 4 approved couch logs. After a while, though, it seemed rather pointless to do these types of caches.

 

From that period of experimentation it became clear to many that these types of caches were too far from the prime-directive of geocaching: find a container, sign a log, trade if you want. While the experimental caches were fun initially I was glad to see that era end.

[+Jeep_Dog]

Do cache owners routinely audit their logbooks vs. what was posted on the webpage?

 

Some do and some do not. From what I've seen in the field and read in the forums, it appears that most do not do this routinely, if at all. There are those, however, that reconcile the difference between physical and online logs to check for the "bogus" factor.

 

It just seems like it would be an exercise in futility since hardly any logbooks are actually filled out sequentially, illegible due to moisture damage, changed names, etc.

 

An excercise in futility only if the cache container is a poor one. A good cache will have a good log. Changed names is relatively rare, and probably not that difficult to verify.

 

The irony probably is the caches where the logs are destroyed, which would make it an exercise in futililty, probably don't have cache owners who check routinely...

 

I guess I just don't understand why anyone would lie about finding a cache. It's not like you win a prize for getting to a certain number and there will always be somebody with more finds than you. It's kind of like what my Drill Sergeant said many years ago in basic training to those who faked their way through PT -- "you're only cheating yourself".

 

Well, that's about the point many folks try to make.

 

I have one logged cache (that is not an earthcache, locationaless, or virtual of course), I think it is my second, where I didn't sign the logbook. I didn't know any better, since I saw the "pros" and/or "legends" in the area do this quite often. I noted all I had to do was "find evidence" of a cache and claim the "find."

 

It was well before 100 where I revised my own personal standard (note I state "personal"), and learned the importance of integrity in actually finding and signing a log early in my caching career; this came after spending 3 hours on noth finding a cache that had been logged earlier in the morning with a "I build these things where I work. Called the owners to let them know what I found." I didn't know enough as a new cacher to read between the lines written by this very veteran cacher to know that it really meant "I didn't find the cache, and I called the owner to get a hint, still could not find them, so described to the owner the spot and am taking a smiley."

 

Through this, I learned the hard way the perhaps my actions can affect and/or ruin the fun for another cacher. So, Bitten will undoubtedly proclaim again that I ride upon a high horse, but the real truth of the matter is that I maintain my personal standards out of consideration of others, not as a moral "better than thou" attitude.

Edited August 5, 2009 by Jeep_Dog

[+Harry Dolphin]

 

Hypothetically I have experienced the same thing only to find out that the cache at hand had half the people not sign the log! how could this be? Were all my friends liars? or half of them anyway? Instead of confronting anyone, I did a little research. Turned out their were two cache containers. The first was thought to have gone missing and the second was placed by the owner as a replacement. From that point on half the people found one of the containers and half found the other.

 

That would be understandable but the hypothetical situation I was speaking of is that the hypothetical cacher has a hypothetical habit of hypothetically logging caches that he has hypothetically never visited. And, hypothetically, been found to have been hypothetically cheating in the past. Hypothetically speaking, of course.

 

Hypothetically, such cachers do exist. I can think of two off hand. One raised curiosity across two countries. Logged several thousand caches. Of the many people who checked the logs, no one ever found a signature. I was surprised to find two of my caches logged the same day. Those caches are about two miles apart, but the driving time is probably an hour and a half. Said cacher also logged twenty-eight other caches that day. (Said cacher averaged about thirty caches a day.) I checked both caches (on different weekends) and found no signature. Other people locally checked some of their caches, and found no signature. I asked my sister to check hers (she lives 450 miles away). No signature. We suspect that said cacher logged any caches near his vacatio trip.

The other theoretical cacher raised suspicion for other reasons. He hit the area in a major blizzard, which basically shut down the state. This did not stop him from making a twenty mile U-turn on the Interstate to 'find' caches on both sides. Nor did it stop him from driving a mile down an unmaintained road to find a cache probably buried under eight inches of snow. The curious thing is that he did log a DNF on a cache that proved to be missing.

My suspicion having been raised, I checked my caches, and did not find signatures. The logs were deleted without any compunction.

[+ThePetersTrio]

The point being: If you, or others in your area notice this trend, what do you do?

 

I think I know exactly the cacher who is hypothetically in question here. I had wondered if other local cachers had noticed this behavior as well.

 

Interesting. Not sure that it is worth doing anything about (although I would delete finds of my own caches if this cacher didn't sign the log). Ultimately he is only making himself look foolish.

Edited August 6, 2009 by ThePetersTrio

[+bittsen]

The point being: If you, or others in your area notice this trend, what do you do?

 

I think I know exactly the cacher who is hypothetically in question here. I had wondered if other local cachers had noticed this behavior as well.

 

Interesting. Not sure that it is worth doing anything about (although I would delete finds of my own caches if this cacher didn't sign the log). Ultimately he is only making himself look foolish.

 

No no noooooo

 

It cannot be. The cacher is hypothetical. The behavior, according to some posts, is potentially real.

 

[knowschad]

I have yet to place a cache, so this probably a bit of a silly question but...

 

Do cache owners routinely audit their logbooks vs. what was posted on the webpage? It just seems like it would be an exercise in futility since hardly any logbooks are actually filled out sequentially, illegible due to moisture damage, changed names, etc.

 

I guess I just don't understand why anyone would lie about finding a cache. It's not like you win a prize for getting to a certain number and there will always be somebody with more finds than you. It's kind of like what my Drill Sergeant said many years ago in basic training to those who faked their way through PT -- "you're only cheating yourself".

 

A few do, most don't. And yes, I agree with you about the "why lie". Bizarre.

[+cbsr]

Just had a guy about 3 days ago claim some of mine that weren't signed....weren't even opened. What made me REALLY mad is that 2 of them were claimed FTF's. Needless to say, he is absent 3 smileys & 2 FTF's now.

 

hahah thats crazy. i cant believe they didnt realize theyd cause a stir when they posted ftf on the cache page. i see alot of folks in this thread talking about people who cache and log the page without signing the physical log, i think if you do that you shouldnt even claim ftf's. what was his response to you finding out?

[+Unkle Fester]

The point being: If you, or others in your area notice this trend, what do you do?

 

I think I know exactly the cacher who is hypothetically in question here. I had wondered if other local cachers had noticed this behavior as well.

 

Interesting. Not sure that it is worth doing anything about (although I would delete finds of my own caches if this cacher didn't sign the log). Ultimately he is only making himself look foolish.

OK, Here's another twist:

 

Let's say we decide the best thing to do is ignore the hypothetical cacher who logs bogus finds. As a community we don't react. Would this end up giving permission to newer cachers as given by the example of Jeep_Dog? I agree and sympothize with JD, becacuse many of my early caching habits came from watching others and what they do as a matter of course. That doesn't make it right, but you feel those are the unwritten rules or accepted practices of the game.

 

I've tossed down a couple film cannisters when I couldn't find a cache - I stopped, even went back and picked them up (this is different than replacing a known missing cache for an owner - with permission)

 

I've found signs of missing caches and logged finds (With the CO's permission) I have since gone back and found the replacements and signed the logs...

 

Setting ourselves a higher standard is not a high horse (I find when my horse is high, he staggers too much), its setting a level of ethics - a higher standard for yourself. Beeing a better cacher. It stays within the spirit of the game - find the cache, sign the log.

 

Most prolific cachers out here I know, even if only by email exchange (Even ThePetersTrio), and being just a little over a year into the game I'm pretty sure I have given myself a pretty good reputation with others - I hope. With one exception. (the exception that proves the rule)

 

Now, back to the hypothetical cacher, if we ignore him, we give permission to skirt the rules, we enable that behavior and even promote it. What happens when new cachers come online and start doing the same and use the excuse "but cacher X does it all the time"?

 

I'm not trying to be a stickler for the rules, just pointing out how ignoring can cause more harm.

[+Unkle Fester]

I have yet to place a cache, so this probably a bit of a silly question but...

 

Do cache owners routinely audit their logbooks vs. what was posted on the webpage? It just seems like it would be an exercise in futility since hardly any logbooks are actually filled out sequentially, illegible due to moisture damage, changed names, etc.

 

I guess I just don't understand why anyone would lie about finding a cache. It's not like you win a prize for getting to a certain number and there will always be somebody with more finds than you. It's kind of like what my Drill Sergeant said many years ago in basic training to those who faked their way through PT -- "you're only cheating yourself".

 

A few do, most don't. And yes, I agree with you about the "why lie". Bizarre.

Low self esteem?

 

Having to "prove" yourself to others?

 

Need for attention?

 

So they can rub your face in it?

 

To feel superior?

 

The list goes on, and on, and on...

[+ThePetersTrio]

I'm not trying to be a stickler for the rules, just pointing out how ignoring can cause more harm.

 

Oh I hear you, believe me. I have had the same thoughts myself.

 

For me though, I want to keep this game fun. Maybe that is selfish of me, I don't know... I honestly do believe that we can only control our own behavior (not the behavior of others) and try to set a good example for those who are new to the game.

 

 

 

As a woman though, I reserve the prerogative to change my mind.

 

[+Unkle Fester]

 

As a woman though, I reserve the prerogative to change my mind.

 

As a man, I have no rights when a woman changes her mind.

[+BBI Dragon]

Why should anyone care about someone's cheating? Because it diminishes the game for all involved.

 

In this case, the topic could have been, but I know it wasn't, started because of a local, "respected" (by some, ridiculed by others) cacher who is cheating in just about all aspects of the game. From couch logging (which has been checked and proven in several states) to signing logs but not logging online until they need to so they can keep their "streak" going, to sock puppet accounts for those FTFs, to accusations of stealing caches & trackables and lying.

 

The concern is the retaliation. Most are rightfully afraid to even deleting a false log to their own caches, let alone call this person out as a cheat.

 

This type of behavior is part of the human spectrum, I understand. But when cachers are intimidated, bullied and afraid, this does diminish the game.

[knowschad]

Why should anyone care about someone's cheating? Because it diminishes the game for all involved.

 

Really? So, the next time I'm out caching and I find a difficult, well camouflaged cache, and I'm feeling happy and proud of my accomplishment, if I should learn later that someone cheated by logging a find that they didn't actually find, my feeling of accomplishment will be lessened? That's odd.

[+bittsen]

Why should anyone care about someone's cheating? Because it diminishes the game for all involved.

 

Really? So, the next time I'm out caching and I find a difficult, well camouflaged cache, and I'm feeling happy and proud of my accomplishment, if I should learn later that someone cheated by logging a find that they didn't actually find, my feeling of accomplishment will be lessened? That's odd.

 

You have to read his whole post to get it. Don't pick and choose which sentences to reply to unless you are going to keep the entire context intact.

 

I happen to agree 100% with BBI Dragons post.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

I would work myself into a high dudgeon, delete all his logs, then go do something honorable where players never cheat like baseball or NASCAR racing or oh wait, football.

 

And if those pure clean honorable All-American pursuits don't give me the smug sense of superiority I seek then I could become a priest or a preacher.

 

While I was getting my own house in order I would play video games by myself to assure that no one was cheating.

 

Then once I was perfect I would go to the forums and start chastising anyone I suspected of cheating... I mean, if all those other groups don't have cheaters why should we?

Edited August 7, 2009 by TheAlabamaRambler

[+bittsen]

I would work myself into a high dudgeon, delete all his logs, then go do something honorable where players never cheat like baseball or NASCAR racing or oh wait, football.

 

And if those pure clean honorable All-American pursuits don't give me the smug sense of superiority I seek then I could become a priest or a preacher.

 

While I was getting my own house in order I would play video games by myself to assure that no one was cheating.

 

Then once I was perfect I would go to the forums and start chastising anyone I suspected of cheating... I mean, if all those other groups don't have cheaters why should we?

 

One would argue that bad priests hurt the clergy. That spying coaches hurts the reputation of College Football. That changing your car before a race, hurts Nascar, etc.

 

It is not a stretch to say that dishonest, or even destructive geocachers, hurt geocaching.

[knowschad]

Why should anyone care about someone's cheating? Because it diminishes the game for all involved.

 

Really? So, the next time I'm out caching and I find a difficult, well camouflaged cache, and I'm feeling happy and proud of my accomplishment, if I should learn later that someone cheated by logging a find that they didn't actually find, my feeling of accomplishment will be lessened? That's odd.

 

You have to read his whole post to get it. Don't pick and choose which sentences to reply to unless you are going to keep the entire context intact.

 

I happen to agree 100% with BBI Dragons post.

 

I have read the whole post, and I didn't pick and chose, and I will post what I think I should post, and I don't need my postings to be edited by you or anyone else, thank you. I was responding to one specific post that claimed that a false log diminished my experience. It does not.

[+Unkle Fester]

 

I have read the whole post, and I didn't pick and chose, and I will post what I think I should post, and I don't need my postings to be edited by you or anyone else, thank you. I was responding to one specific post that claimed that a false log diminished my experience. It does not.

Would it dimisnish your experience if more and more people were to generate bogus logs?

 

I'm playing devils advocate... go figure...

 

At what point is the behavior go from tolerable to intolerable?

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

One would argue that bad priests hurt the clergy. That spying coaches hurts the reputation of College Football. That changing your car before a race, hurts Nascar, etc.

 

It is not a stretch to say that dishonest, or even destructive geocachers, hurt geocaching.

 

I actually agree with you, to a point.

 

I had to struggle with this a few years ago when I was invited to stay with a caching couple who are well-known nationally, highly respected, even beloved in their caching community. After dinner we settled in and he got on the computer while his wife and I talked. She mentioned that he was "armchair caching", a phrase I had never heard at the time, so I asked what she meant. She explained that it was their hobby to cruise international cache listings, mostly virtuals, and log them.

 

Well, crap. She's telling me that my idols have feet of clay! No wonder they had such high find counts! Jiminy Cricket I was hopping mad!

 

So this stayed in my mind when I returned home, I just didn't know what to think of it. I really liked these people and could not believe, they were the last couple I would have believed, were regular and intentional cheaters!

 

Did the rest of the caching community know about this? Should I tell them? Should I launch a forum thread about cheaters and reveal what I had learned?

 

Then I got to thinking "so what?" They're not hurting anyone. They're having fun doing what they enjoy. Everyone that knows them likes them and they hadn't tried to hide their armchair habit, for all I knew it was common knowledge, yet they were respected anyway. I had (and have since) cached with them in numerous states... if you are in the top 100 find count in the world then it's almost certain you would have cached with them at some point. There was no doubt that these were genuine real-deal geocachers... who also logged caches (virts, if they logged traditionals that way I never found out about it) that they've never been to from their armchair!

 

So I decided that it was their business, not mine. I cache my way, they cache theirs. What they do with their armchair time affects me and this game not one whit.

 

That's when I developed a "play it your way" and "live and let live" attitude toward geocaching.

 

But, though we're still friends, I like them and enjoy their company, knowing that they'll log stuff they've never seen DID cause me to lose the respect I once had for them. I never discussed it with them, perhaps they see nothing wrong with it, who knows what evil lurks in the heart of man?

 

Where I have a problem is your last statement "It is not a stretch to say that dishonest, or even destructive geocachers, hurt geocaching."

 

Obviously destructive geocachers hurt the game and all of us; dishonest not so much... but I don't necessarily see dishonest as destructive.

 

 

And no, I won't tell who they are in a PM, so don't bother!

[+briansnat]

Why should anyone care about someone's cheating? Because it diminishes the game for all involved.

 

Really? So, the next time I'm out caching and I find a difficult, well camouflaged cache, and I'm feeling happy and proud of my accomplishment, if I should learn later that someone cheated by logging a find that they didn't actually find, my feeling of accomplishment will be lessened? That's odd.

 

It's against the law to wear the Congressional Medal of Honor if you didn't earn it. Why? Does the idea of people wearing it who didn't earn it diminish the accomplishments of those who earned it? No - and yes. The act of valor that the individual winner committed can not be diminished. When you see someone wearing that medal, you know that he is someone who did something very special. One of a select few.

 

Now if you could buy the Medal of Honor at Wal-Mart and everybody was wearing them, whenever you saw someone sporting the medal you'd probably think he bought it at Wal-Mart. You might even dismiss a honest to goodness hero CMOH winner as just another Wal Mart Medal of Honor "winner". In that respect when everybody has one and you can't tell the difference between a legit wearer of the medal and a phony it can diminish the meaning of the medal - not necessarily to the recipient, but to the general public. That's why it's illegal to manufacture them, or wear one if you didn't earn it.

 

Not to compare the act of finding a geocache with that of winning the Medal of Honor, but say Bob Q. Cacher bags bags a 5/5 cache that only 2 out of 100 cachers were able to find. He can rightfully feel a sense of accomplishment and pride.

 

Now if a bunch of frauds log finds on the cache it won't lessen Bob Q. Cacher's personal sense of accomplishment. You can't take that away from Bob. However it can diminish the community's perception of Bob's accomplishment because people will be wondering whether Bob is just another phony. Bob doesn't deserve that.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

... Now if a bunch of frauds log finds on the cache it won't lessen Bob Q. Cacher's personal sense of accomplishment. You can't take that away from Bob. However it can diminish the community's perception of Bob's accomplishment because people will be wondering whether Bob is just another phony. Bob doesn't deserve that.

 

I totally agree, and since we'll never be able to weed out cheaters all stats are suspect, therefore we should do away with posted find counts... they are no way to evaluate cachers.

 

Bob will then get the degree of respect that he earns from the cachers who know him.

[+Sagefox]

 

So I decided that it was their business, not mine. I cache my way, they cache theirs. What they do with their armchair time affects me and this game not one whit.

 

That's when I developed a "play it your way" and "live and let live" attitude toward geocaching.

 

 

That is a sad story. Perhaps your let-live logic will sway me in the future (it's quite possible) but I'm not ready for it just yet.

 

Virtual cache owners should "delete bogus finds". No need to confront anyone, just hit the delete key. No explanation necessary. A coucher will know why you did it.

 

It is easy to ferret out a coucher. Check their virtual finds for the tell-tale pattern of interstate and international virtual logging over a few hours or days. We can also check their container finds, just prior and post, to confirm they were nowhere near the virtual. (Sometimes I wish I hadn't archived all our virtual caches. It would be fun to do some serious couch-zapping.)

 

No wonder they had such high find counts!

 

A popular concern on these pages but in actuality their high numbers are not due to armchairing a handful of virtuals. Even a hundred would be less than 1% of their total if they are in the top powercacher realm.

 

Given your description of these folks it seems really doubtful that they would claim finds on container caches they have not visited.

[+WRASTRO]

... Now if a bunch of frauds log finds on the cache it won't lessen Bob Q. Cacher's personal sense of accomplishment. You can't take that away from Bob. However it can diminish the community's perception of Bob's accomplishment because people will be wondering whether Bob is just another phony. Bob doesn't deserve that.

 

I totally agree, and since we'll never be able to weed out cheaters all stats are suspect, therefore we should do away with posted find counts... they are no way to evaluate cachers.

 

Bob will then get the degree of respect that he earns from the cachers who know him.

Bob gets the respect from cachers who know him regardless of any find counts posted on the GC.com site. Just as the true CMOH recipient receives from those who know him. This seems like an extreme stretch to try to push your little agenda.

[+Sagefox]

 

I totally agree, and since we'll never be able to weed out cheaters all stats are suspect, therefore we should do away with posted find counts... they are no way to evaluate cachers.

 

I'm not picking on you, as two posts in a row might seem, and I agree with a lot of what your posts say but I respectfully disagree, big time, with this logic.

 

Does anyone really believe that bogus logging amounts to more than a small percentage of any one cacher's stats? Wouldn't they get bored with it after awhile? It simply doesn't have the "charge" that a real cache find has And even if a handful of people in each state were major cheaters would that actually water down the integrity of the masses?

 

Claiming that all stats are suspect because a fraction of a percent of all finds are bogus is an unfair representation of the end product of the programming put into this game. It is not a valid reason to do away with posted find counts.

 

I can easily think of about 100 cacher accounts I've gotten to know over the years and could add many more given more than two minutes to think about it. Am I really supposed to believe that all their stats are suspect? Is it possible that any one of them has more than a fraction of a percent of questionable finds? I say no to both counts.

 

Cheating reports in the forums are like crime reports on TV news. There just isn't that much of it per capita.

 

(Oops. I didn't really mean to get up on the soap box. Sorry.)

[Clan Riffster]

I honestly do believe that we can only control our own behavior, not the behavior of others.

Excellent advice. There was a time when I tried really hard to get all worked up in a proper snit over some goober logging a find in Idaho and a find in Denmark on the same day. I really did. I wanted the angst! I wanted to pooch my lower lip out! Heck, I even contemplated holding my breath till I turned blue! But I kept coming back to a visual of some other goober, sitting in his living room in Paduka, playing solitaire, peeking at the occasional card, then running over to the solitaire forums, bragging about his prowess, posting in all caps, "I GOTS GAME!"

 

How he plays has no effect on how I play, or how I enjoy the game.

 

If I ever encounter a bogus log on one of my caches, I may very well delete it. (or not...)

 

What I will not do is break out the torches and pitchforks.

 

Maybe my give-a-darn's busted?

[Earthdog Patrick]

 

It isn't important what caches you search.

It isn't important the caches you hide.

What is important, is how you play the game.

 

 

It IS important what catches you search.

It IS important the catches you hide.

What is NOT important, is how you play the game.

[+KBI]

What would you do if you found out a very prominant cacher in your area was couch caching?

 

What if you have irrefutable proof?

Roll your eyes and move on.

[+Unkle Fester]

... Now if a bunch of frauds log finds on the cache it won't lessen Bob Q. Cacher's personal sense of accomplishment. You can't take that away from Bob. However it can diminish the community's perception of Bob's accomplishment because people will be wondering whether Bob is just another phony. Bob doesn't deserve that.

 

<snip>

Bob will then get the degree of respect that he earns from the cachers who know him.

Bob gets the respect from cachers who know him regardless of any find counts posted on the GC.com site. Just as the true CMOH recipient receives from those who know him. This seems like an extreme stretch to try to push your little agenda.

It may be an extreme stretch, but these are very good answers and have helped me figure things out.

 

Premium Geocaching.com account: $35

Garmin Rino 530HCx GPSr: $250

<paraphrase>:getting the degree of respect that he earns from the cachers who know him... Priceless

 

And that works both ways.

[+briansnat]

This seems like an extreme stretch to try to push your little agenda

 

Yeah, my little agenda of honesty. I never imagined that it would be so controversial. Sorry for pushing it on you. My bad. Carry on.

Edited August 8, 2009 by briansnat

[+racingmissy]

I may have forgotten to write on the log even though I found it. Heck one day I put my truck keys in the cache by mistake. Got to the truck and had to go back to find it again to get my keys. But I would never log online one that I didn't find. One time I logged a DNF. The owner e-mailed me and asked me to decribe the area. I told him he came back and told me I could log the find if I wanted because it was muggled and wasn't going to replace it. I didn't feel right doing that. I didn't find it so I keep it a DNF. There are people in life who will cheat at everything. Why? Not sure.

[knowschad]

 

I have read the whole post, and I didn't pick and chose, and I will post what I think I should post, and I don't need my postings to be edited by you or anyone else, thank you. I was responding to one specific post that claimed that a false log diminished my experience. It does not.

Would it dimisnish your experience if more and more people were to generate bogus logs?

 

I'm playing devils advocate... go figure...

 

At what point is the behavior go from tolerable to intolerable?

 

That's an easy one... when I can no longer get out in the woods to look for caches. That's the only thing that would diminish my experience. Remember that early cachers didn't even have "number" unless they kept track for themselves, yet they certainly had a good experience.

[knowschad]

Not to compare the act of finding a geocache with that of winning the Medal of Honor, but say Bob Q. Cacher bags bags a 5/5 cache that only 2 out of 100 cachers were able to find. He can rightfully feel a sense of accomplishment and pride.

 

Now if a bunch of frauds log finds on the cache it won't lessen Bob Q. Cacher's personal sense of accomplishment. You can't take that away from Bob. However it can diminish the community's perception of Bob's accomplishment because people will be wondering whether Bob is just another phony. Bob doesn't deserve that.

 

Is Bob's name in the log?

[+KBI]

Not to compare the act of finding a geocache with that of winning the Medal of Honor, but say Bob Q. Cacher bags bags a 5/5 cache that only 2 out of 100 cachers were able to find. He can rightfully feel a sense of accomplishment and pride.

 

Now if a bunch of frauds log finds on the cache it won't lessen Bob Q. Cacher's personal sense of accomplishment. You can't take that away from Bob. However it can diminish the community's perception of Bob's accomplishment because people will be wondering whether Bob is just another phony. Bob doesn't deserve that.

Does Bob cache for the community, or does Bob cache for Bob?

 

Besides, if we’re talking about an actual community here – one where people truly know each other – then Bob’s reputation will be perfectly safe because everyone will already know of his good character. In this case the community's perception of Bob's accomplishment will not be diminished by the mere coincidental existence of a suspect log.

 

But if by "the community" you simply mean "all other cachers," then why should Bob care? Bob knows two things: (1) He found the cache, and (2) he doesn’t go around questioning other people’s finds (because he’s got better things to do), therefore why should any of those thousands of anonymous cachers out there care about his finds?

 

Bob will know he found the cache. His true friends will know he found the cache. Those elite few who earn the opportunity to inspect the paper log will know he found the cache.

 

To everyone else, it simply doesn’t matter. Excepting for the elite members of the self-appointed* Cache Police, that is – but who cares what they think?

 

A smiley is not a point for keeping score. A smiley is an online record of one’s caching activities. The existence of a bogus record does not change the validity of any of the correct records.

 

 

(* Is there any other kind?)