False find claims

February 13, 2015

Having located and retrieved a Travel Bug from a location, I was surprised to find a fellow cache logging the same item 3 days later, this is the first occasion this has happened to me and I don't think it is in the true spirit of Caching.

Does anyone investigate these obvious queries ?

1.1k · February 13, 2015

Could it be that there are more than one coin (copies) in circulation. Or is it that the other logger has used the wrong date. All is possible. I keep getting logs for my TB that I took to Munich last August.

8.6k · February 13, 2015

When you say "logging the same item 3 days later" do you mean they logged a discovery on it? If so, that's fine. But if it's something stranger than that maybe you could give us a link to the TB page so we can see what happened exactly.

"Does anyone investigate these obvious queries?"

No, it's down to the trackable's owner to keep an eye on the logs their item is receiving. Groundspeak rarely investigate unless some gross misuse of the website is involved.

MrsB

February 13, 2015

Yes they logged a discovery on it, obviously havent seen it. TB GeoOrca TB5RVB7 but didn't log the cache which held the TB inside.

Commented "seen somewhere in the last few months..... thanks for sharing" but I have it here.

Been reading on another forum ref: Armchair caching could this be that ?? or am I a little noob here, I am thinking that people will cheat whatever they do to gain high numbers of supposed found items.

Have mailed the person and got a reply. (well delete it its only a tb).

Edited February 13, 2015 by Deccca

6.1k · February 13, 2015

There are a number of legit reasons this could be happening, without details of which TB and precisely who did what it's difficult to pass judgement; but nobody will do anything about it except the TB owner, and only they if they are notice and are bothered about it.

3.8k · February 13, 2015

There is a chance they did see it. That cacher could be like me; I don't always log discoveries right away. Although I say I saw it at XYZ event, it may be a few weeks or more before Iog it. Or maybe they took a picture of the number and forgot about it. Not saying that the cacher isn't falsely logging it, but there's no reason to believe either way, unlike a lot that say they saw it on Facebook for example.

13.7k · February 13, 2015

Edited February 13, 2015 by cerberus1

2.8k · February 13, 2015

I usually take a picture on my iPhone of the tracking number when I stumble across a TB or GC that I don't grab and it's not unusual to not log them for days or even a week or two and I don't worry about back dating the discovery. I only log a TB or GC the same day if I actually grab it.

1.5k · February 13, 2015

The cacher who logged that discovery of the TB saw it in the TB Hotel GC58E0Z where it was earlier this January. Nothing false about this.

February 13, 2015

I dont buy that!

Why would they reply to my mail saying I quote "So I've seen it in last few months, was it in ok he can delete my log, it's just a tb".

So what your saying is anyone can just supposedly see a Trackable and without the reference number can actually log it,and thats ok. no mention in a log just claim it as dicovered and inflate their finds.

I have just tried this out and can see how it works, Wow I don't even need to leave home. If I wanted to cheat

6.1k · February 13, 2015

So what your saying is anyone can just supposedly see a Trackable and without the reference number can actually log it,and thats ok. no mention in a log just claim it as dicovered and inflate their finds.

...

Wow I don't even need to leave home. If I wanted to cheat

So he saw the TB in a cache some time ago, he noted the ref number (he needs the ref number to log the discovery), and only got around to logging the discovery last week. There's absolutely nothing wrong in that and here's no cheating going on, it's the way it's supposed to work.

As for your comment about not needing to leave home, he saw it in a cache not in his house.

February 13, 2015

I dont understand the point of Discovery

but ok if your happy with that then Fine

Had enough of this now

6.1k · February 13, 2015

I dont understand the point of Discovery

The point of discovery is to handle cases where someone saw a TB but didn't want to take it for some reason. I tend to discover trackables that I can't take away (dogs, cars, people, etc) and don't normally discover regular TBs, but it's a legit part of the game and if others choose to do it then it's perfectly fine.

5.7k · February 13, 2015

Or maybe they took a picture of the number and forgot about it. Not saying that the cacher isn't falsely logging it, but there's no reason to believe either way, unlike a lot that say they saw it on Facebook for example.

Some of mine are being virtually discovered on Facebook, but their tracking numbers are visable here on their page. I'm happy that others enjoy discovering my trackables.

9.2k · February 13, 2015

I dont understand the point of Discovery

but ok if your happy with that then Fine

Had enough of this now

I find a cache, it has a TB, the TB wants to "Go North..." I'm going South. I leave the TB.

I saw the TB, so log a Discovered.

I go to an Event and see a cachers TB in their hand. It's theirs, they own it, it doesn't go out in the wild.

I saw the TB, so log a Discovered.

I meet a fellow cacher out on a series of caches. They show me the TB's they Retrieved from the cache I'm heading to. I can't help with their journey, so leave the TB's with the other cacher.

I saw the TB, so log a Discovered.

5.7k · February 13, 2015

I just don't get it why some think it is "cheating" to virtually discover a trackable. So if you see a proxy in a cache and log that you found it, you really did'nt. You only found a proxy. :laughing:

February 13, 2015

hmm well maybe I am a noob at this,I just looked on facebook and found hundreds of TBs with the numbers so I could log them all (given enough time)

Kinda makes a joke of what I thought was the fundamental caching way, get your walking boots on, on put the lead on the dog and go find some caches.

Think I will stick to that way.

13.7k · February 13, 2015

I dont understand the point of Discovery

The point of discovery is to handle cases where someone saw a TB but didn't want to take it for some reason. I tend to discover trackables that I can't take away (dogs, cars, people, etc) and don't normally discover regular TBs, but it's a legit part of the game and if others choose to do it then it's perfectly fine.

+1

No longer using a phone, and not knowing when's the next time I'm heading out again, unless a mission is with the TB, I'll discover it, not knowing whether I'd help it along.

- Though sometimes I'll retrieve 'em if they're damaged to fix 'em up.

With mention of where I "discovered" it, at least the CO then knows that the trackable's not among the missing.

7.5k · February 13, 2015

hmm well maybe I am a noob at this,I just looked on facebook and found hundreds of TBs with the numbers so I could log them all (given enough time)

Kinda makes a joke of what I thought was the fundamental caching way, get your walking boots on, on put the lead on the dog and go find some caches.

Think I will stick to that way.

People do log TBs they've never seen. I've never understood what motivates them, and I've never seen anyone defend the practice here in the forums, so I think you're on the same page as the rest of us on that score. This practice is why Groundspeak stresses that you shouldn't post a picture that shows your TB's code.

I think you're trying to point out a similarity between this practice and the TB log you ran into. Personally, I agree that there's a little of what I might call "disrespect" in the vacuous discovery. I'd prefer not to see them posted, but they don't really bother me, and, as you can see, many people support the practice. If I owned the TB, I'd feel that knowing that a particular cacher saw a TB is not all that interesting without so much as a date. An empty discovery log -- by far the most common kind -- is lame to begin with since it clearly shows that the discoverer had no personal connection to the TB. But when they don't even bother to work out the correct date to put on the log, the only information is about the person logging the discover, and that strikes me as a little arrogant. Other responses in this thread say there's nothing wrong with that, but I disagree: the log has the wrong date, so it's a lie. It's true that this isn't that important, and many TB owners don't care, but I still say it's wrong, lazy, and confusing.

If I realized someone had posted a wrong date log like this, I'd definitely mention in my drop log that the TB's been in my possession since my retrieval, so I'm sure the date on the discover log is wrong.

By the way, not really on topic, but I enjoy working out what went wrong when I run into an anomalous log like this, as palmetto did to figure out where the discoverer saw it and when. (In this case, it was fairly simple, which is all the more reason to be astonished at the fact that the person logging the discover couldn't be bothered to do it themselves.) This kind of thing happens all the time for many, many reasons, so get used to it. If it strikes your fancy, you can even use them as a mystery to solve, adding even more fun to your TB grab. This one turned out to just be a legitimate discover by a lazy logger, but sometimes the facts paint a more interesting picture, although it's almost never possible to pin down exactly what happened for sure. This is an example of why it's always a good idea to assume the best intentions whenever you run into something in any log that strikes you as fishy.

February 13, 2015

I often log TBs well after I discover them (usually an event) - in fact I did so today. I was going through old photos and found one of a hand holding a TB tag and wondered whose hand it was. Turns out it was a TB I "discovered" in the event owner's hands precisely 13 days ago. Was that cheating? I think not - I saw the TB and "discovered" it at that point, but was merely late in logging it. What a crime!

When I do log late, I do try to backdate it to the time that I can usually deduce I saw it, going by logs. It seems that this person didn't necessarily manage that. Still doesn't make it cheating in my book, even if it's not a perfect log. Incidentally, there are loads of trackables over the years which I HAVEN'T logged because the number doesn't turn out to correlate to what I wrote down, despite my jiggling around with possible options. Was that cheating because they're NOT logged?

Finally, rather an irony that you are inviting us to "cheat" by posting the TB number! Any armchair cacher could add to their number. Me? I've left it well alone.

:blink:

2.4k · February 14, 2015

Finally, rather an irony that you are inviting us to "cheat" by posting the TB number! Any armchair cacher could add to their number. Me? I've left it well alone.

Umm, nope - they correctly used the reference number, not the one you can use to discover the TB.

February 14, 2015

Yes I suggest reading previous posts carefully before commenting and accusing, this will save embarrasment and avoid questions of credibility

February 14, 2015

Yes I suggest reading previous posts carefully before commenting and accusing, this will save embarrasment and avoid questions of credibility

I assume that's directed at me. Ok, hands up, I got the TB reference wrong, but to talk about accusing is a bit pot and kettle, methinks.

Not embarrassed - why should I be?

"Questions of credibility"? Do explain.

:laughing:

Edited February 14, 2015 by Original A1

7.5k · February 14, 2015

I often log TBs well after I discover them (usually an event) - in fact I did so today. I was going through old photos and found one of a hand holding a TB tag and wondered whose hand it was. Turns out it was a TB I "discovered" in the event owner's hands precisely 13 days ago. Was that cheating? I think not - I saw the TB and "discovered" it at that point, but was merely late in logging it. What a crime!

While the OP thought there was some cheating going on, we've determined that that isn't the case, so one hopes the OP is satisfied on that score.

I don't see anything at all wrong about the scenario you've described here. I'd complain if you didn't date the discover correctly -- a bad date was what set the OP off, we discovered -- but you say you do that. And in this case, that's a great story log about how you found the number for the TB you discovered, so I assume you put that in your log, which is exactly what makes an excellent TB log.

February 14, 2015

I really wonder how I seem to have become the bad guy here. I came on the forum for the first time as a relative beginner to ask a question about a date issue and get some advice on procedures that I did not understand and suddenly everybody seems to want an argument.

I did not understand the Discovery option, I certainly do now, so lets just leave it there shall we, lets just go out and do some caching. those who want too.

6.1k · February 14, 2015

lets just go out and do some caching. those who want too.

Sounds reasonable to me. As the OP, you've had your initial query answered so you could ask a passing moderator to lock the thread now.

February 15, 2015

Deccca, don't take it to heart! Forums often seem odd places and slightly hostile when a smiley would have helped lighten the discussions, it's right to ask questions and learn from others (we are still finding things out after 9 years at it :D ). As you say get out there and enjoy the hobby...

7.5k · February 15, 2015

I really wonder how I seem to have become the bad guy here.

I hope I don't further upset you by disagreeing and saying that I don't see anything here that makes me think anyone thinks you're a bad guy. You explained what happened, and people told you how an honest cacher could file such a log.

February 19, 2015

One of my Travel Bugs' tracking codes has apparently been posted on a German Geocaching web page. The online log (and my inbox) are filling up with 100's of discovered claims from Germany. The actual trackable is somewhere in the U.S. currently. I have translated some of the German logs these people are writing and they often come out something like

"I found your travel bug on a list somewhere. Thanks for sharing. Delete this if you don't like it"

Looking at their profiles, these geocachers typically have found a small number of caches but have logged many thousand Travel Bugs. So maybe they enjoy "armchair" geocaching but, if there was some way to do it, I would like to block this TB from being "discovered".

9.2k · February 19, 2015

Delete the logs.

Edit the TBs description to add: "NO Virtual Discoveries allowed" or similar.

Probably wont stop it, but it might slow things down...

Be aware that cachers may still 'Discover' the TB while it's in a cache, but most cachers will usually say so.

May be worth checking the photo gallery for the TB, just in case the tracking number is on show.

7.5k · February 19, 2015

Edit the TBs description to add: "NO Virtual Discoveries allowed" or similar.

Probably wont stop it, but it might slow things down...

I doubt it would even slot things down, but at least it might make the dreary job of deleting the logs more gleeful by giving it that self righteous sense of having told them so.

So maybe they enjoy "armchair" geocaching but, if there was some way to do it, I would like to block this TB from being "discovered".

I can't imagine a reasonable why to design the user interface, but conceptually what would make sense to me is the ability to block discover logs except when the logger is finding the cache the TB's in.

February 20, 2015

What about when a TB is seen when in a friend's sticky mits and not in a cache? Lots of fools gold here methinks.

3.8k · February 20, 2015

What about when a TB is seen when in a friend's sticky mits and not in a cache? Lots of fools gold here methinks.

What about it?

7.5k · February 20, 2015

What about when a TB is seen when in a friend's sticky mits and not in a cache? Lots of fools gold here methinks.

Yeah, that case is one of the main reasons I said I couldn't imagine how such a "must find cache" requirement could be structured.

1.7k · February 23, 2015

What about when a TB is seen when in a friend's sticky mits and not in a cache? Lots of fools gold here methinks.

Yeah, that case is one of the main reasons I said I couldn't imagine how such a "must find cache" requirement could be structured.

Yep, and I'm one of those people who might have been accused of cheating at some point since on a couple of occasions I have rediscovered a tracking code I wrote down on a scrap of paper months (or in one case years) after I had actually seen the TB, so went ahead and logged the discovery out of the pure novelty of having lost and found the code again. The TB might have moved through 100 caches and as many cachers since I saw it.

False find claims

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

Join the conversation