Cheaters! (Despicable!)

[+CacheMoneyHustlas]

Hi everybody!!

 

I'm a newbie to this awesome game/hobby and have been caching for about a year and a half now. I absolutely love it and know that I'll be a Geocacher for the rest of my life.

 

I am wondering what, (if anything), can be done about Geocaching cheaters. I'm referring to people who sit in front of their PC's, looking at a map of an area, and then start logging find after find without ever setting foot anywhere near a cache.

 

I'm watching a certain profile right now, of a person who went from 300 finds to over 1000 in about a week. Furthermore, the caches are geographically located in an impossible proximity to accomplish such a feat, even if it was possible for him to actually find that many caches in such a short amount of time. (I know that some cache owners are on to him, because I see his cache count going up and down on a daily basis.)

 

What tipped me off and got me watching his profile in the first place, was that he logged a find on a cache on my watchlist. One that I have been back to several times and have not been able to find. When I reached out to him for a hint, he replied with an answer that made absolutely no sense with regard to this cache, thus proving without any doubt that he was lying about it.

 

My questions are: What can be done about a person like this? Can he be reported? Can Groundspeak do anything, such as banning or suspending? And why would a person do that to begin with??? (I mean, it's not like he's getting paid for his finds.)

 

Thank you all for your time and input!!

 

:-)

Edited October 14, 2016 by CacheMoneyHustlas

[+Touchstone]

My questions are: What can be done about a person like this? Can he be reported?

 

Link for reference:

 

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=request

 

Depending on the "infraction", the User could be suspended or banned. Most likely suspended, as such behavior doesn't really damage or impede any of the services of the website. If someone is doing this sort of thing in a relatively stealthy manner, it may take more than one report and further proof for Groundspeak to take action on it (e.g. log a Find, but no signature in the logbook for instance).

 

If you decide to report it, don't expect much of a response from Groundspeak. They tend to keep such actions private, which is consistent with their policy.

Edited October 14, 2016 by Touchstone

[+narcissa]

Report it when you see it. Delete it when it is your cache. Otherwise, try not to be too riled by this sort of thing. The game is more rewarding if you focus your efforts on enjoying caches and making friends in your caching community, not policing other people's find counts.

[Pup Patrol]

There are spammers that hit up geocaching.

 

Report the username to Groundspeak as advised by Touchstone. GS can deal with the issue and delete all the username's finds.

 

If any caches that you own are involved, then you can delete the bogus finds.

 

 

B.

[+searchjaunt]

 

Depending on the "infraction", the User could be suspended or banned. Most likely suspended, as such behavior doesn't really damage or impede any of the services of the website. If someone is doing this sort of thing in a relatively stealthy manner, it may take more than one report and further proof for Groundspeak to take action on it (e.g. log a Find, but no signature in the logbook for instance).

 

 

Groundspeak doesn't ban cheaters. I reported once a group of caches logging a lot a virtuals and ECs in such clumsy way that it was clear that it was physically impossible that they've visited the locations at all.

All I got was a reply saying that it's up to the discretion of the CO to delete the logs or not.

Cheaters are left to their own devices.

[RuideAlmeida]

Groundspeak doesn't ban cheaters.

 

Wrong. After consideration, their profile accounts can be blocked... and a lot are.

[+CacheMoneyHustlas]

 

Depending on the "infraction", the User could be suspended or banned. Most likely suspended, as such behavior doesn't really damage or impede any of the services of the website. If someone is doing this sort of thing in a relatively stealthy manner, it may take more than one report and further proof for Groundspeak to take action on it (e.g. log a Find, but no signature in the logbook for instance).

 

 

Groundspeak doesn't ban cheaters. I reported once a group of caches logging a lot a virtuals and ECs in such clumsy way that it was clear that it was physically impossible that they've visited the locations at all.

All I got was a reply saying that it's up to the discretion of the CO to delete the logs or not.

Cheaters are left to their own devices.

 

Exactly what this person does!! He logged 20 virtuals in 4 different states in the last 3 days, as well as supposedly being a "Gold Level Earth Cache Master". Along with more than 300 traditional caches in a weeks time, (which have apparently been stripped from him by CO's, I'm assuming.)

[Pup Patrol]

Groundspeak doesn't ban cheaters.

 

Wrong. After consideration, their profile accounts can be blocked... and a lot are.

 

And the bogus finds deleted.

 

Groundspeak DOES, and has in the past, take appropriate action when advised of suspicious behaviour.

 

 

B.

[Pup Patrol]

Exactly what this person does!! He logged 20 virtuals in 4 different states in the last 3 days, as well as supposedly being a "Gold Level Earth Cache Master". Along with more than 300 traditional caches in a weeks time, (which have apparently been stripped from him by CO's, I'm assuming.)

 

Did you report the username to Groundspeak?

 

B.

[+Manville Possum]

 

Exactly what this person does!! He logged 20 virtuals in 4 different states in the last 3 days, as well as supposedly being a "Gold Level Earth Cache Master".

 

Any chance that those virtuals are ownerless? I recall seeing EarthCaches being logged after they are archived and the member/owner is locked/banned here.

 

Cheat happens.

[+CacheMoneyHustlas]

Exactly what this person does!! He logged 20 virtuals in 4 different states in the last 3 days, as well as supposedly being a "Gold Level Earth Cache Master". Along with more than 300 traditional caches in a weeks time, (which have apparently been stripped from him by CO's, I'm assuming.)

 

Did you report the username to Groundspeak?

 

B.

 

I sent the original email that started this thread to GS, on the advice of one of the very first posts. I didn't include the username there, just as I didn't here. I wanted to wait to see if they would reach out to me about this.

[+CacheMoneyHustlas]

 

Exactly what this person does!! He logged 20 virtuals in 4 different states in the last 3 days, as well as supposedly being a "Gold Level Earth Cache Master".

 

Any chance that those virtuals are ownerless? I recall seeing EarthCaches being logged after they are archived and the member/owner is locked/banned here.

 

Cheat happens.

 

I'm not sure if the the vrutuals are ownerless and not sure how I would ascertain that. (As I said in my original post, I'm a newbie. But even as a newbie, I would NEVER stoop to cheating!!)

[+searchjaunt]

Groundspeak doesn't ban cheaters.

 

Wrong. After consideration, their profile accounts can be blocked... and a lot are.

 

My experience proves the opposite.

[+JeepFreak81]

I don't really concern myself with such things. If it happens on one of my cache's I'll delete the log and move on. Repeat offenders might get reported but I'd much rather enjoy going out and finding caches than worry about if somebody else is posting bogus logs. It is a bit frustrating only because you wonder what the motivation is for these people. That and CO's have to spend time sorting out these bogus logs and deleting them in order to keep their cache find counts accurate.

[Pup Patrol]

Exactly what this person does!! He logged 20 virtuals in 4 different states in the last 3 days, as well as supposedly being a "Gold Level Earth Cache Master". Along with more than 300 traditional caches in a weeks time, (which have apparently been stripped from him by CO's, I'm assuming.)

 

Did you report the username to Groundspeak?

 

B.

 

I sent the original email that started this thread to GS, on the advice of one of the very first posts. I didn't include the username there, just as I didn't here. I wanted to wait to see if they would reach out to me about this.

 

So you want GS to guess which of the millions of usernames it is that you are having a problem with?

 

 

B.

[Pup Patrol]

I don't really concern myself with such things. If it happens on one of my cache's I'll delete the log and move on. Repeat offenders might get reported but I'd much rather enjoy going out and finding caches than worry about if somebody else is posting bogus logs. It is a bit frustrating only because you wonder what the motivation is for these people. That and CO's have to spend time sorting out these bogus logs and deleting them in order to keep their cache find counts accurate.

 

There's been a lot of discussion of the detrimental effects that bogus find logs have on cachers and caches.

 

A search of the forum might prove useful as to why spammers and archair loggers do indeed affect all of us.

 

B.

[+narcissa]

 

Depending on the "infraction", the User could be suspended or banned. Most likely suspended, as such behavior doesn't really damage or impede any of the services of the website. If someone is doing this sort of thing in a relatively stealthy manner, it may take more than one report and further proof for Groundspeak to take action on it (e.g. log a Find, but no signature in the logbook for instance).

 

 

Groundspeak doesn't ban cheaters. I reported once a group of caches logging a lot a virtuals and ECs in such clumsy way that it was clear that it was physically impossible that they've visited the locations at all.

All I got was a reply saying that it's up to the discretion of the CO to delete the logs or not.

Cheaters are left to their own devices.

 

Groundspeak does block spam accounts.

 

They do tend to ignore subjective complaints about "cheating" and leave it to cache owners to police finds on their own caches.

 

If a particular cache appears to be subject to an influx of bogus finds without appropriate intervention from the cache owner, use NM and NA to deal with it.

[+cerberus1]

Exactly what this person does!! He logged 20 virtuals in 4 different states in the last 3 days, as well as supposedly being a "Gold Level Earth Cache Master". Along with more than 300 traditional caches in a weeks time, (which have apparently been stripped from him by CO's, I'm assuming.)

 

Did you report the username to Groundspeak?

 

B.

 

I sent the original email that started this thread to GS, on the advice of one of the very first posts. I didn't include the username there, just as I didn't here. I wanted to wait to see if they would reach out to me about this.

 

So you want GS to guess which of the millions of usernames it is that you are having a problem with?

I agree.

Anything that can help a very busy office take action without wasting to much time with guessing games, I'd bet is appreciated.

[+jellis]

 

Depending on the "infraction", the User could be suspended or banned. Most likely suspended, as such behavior doesn't really damage or impede any of the services of the website. If someone is doing this sort of thing in a relatively stealthy manner, it may take more than one report and further proof for Groundspeak to take action on it (e.g. log a Find, but no signature in the logbook for instance).

 

 

Groundspeak doesn't ban cheaters. I reported once a group of caches logging a lot a virtuals and ECs in such clumsy way that it was clear that it was physically impossible that they've visited the locations at all.

All I got was a reply saying that it's up to the discretion of the CO to delete the logs or not.

Cheaters are left to their own devices.

 

Exactly what this person does!! He logged 20 virtuals in 4 different states in the last 3 days, as well as supposedly being a "Gold Level Earth Cache Master". Along with more than 300 traditional caches in a weeks time, (which have apparently been stripped from him by CO's, I'm assuming.)

It all depends on how far apart the states are. And the amount of 300 in one day is a drop in the bucket now days with Power trails. Not saying you are wrong but that is what HQ does, check to see if it is possible. I found over 800 caches in one day doing a power trail.

They still could be fake logs like I just found out on some in my area. A kid wanted to hide a cache and faked logs so they would look like they were experienced.

[+CacheMoneyHustlas]

Exactly what this person does!! He logged 20 virtuals in 4 different states in the last 3 days, as well as supposedly being a "Gold Level Earth Cache Master". Along with more than 300 traditional caches in a weeks time, (which have apparently been stripped from him by CO's, I'm assuming.)

 

Did you report the username to Groundspeak?

 

B.

 

I sent the original email that started this thread to GS, on the advice of one of the very first posts. I didn't include the username there, just as I didn't here. I wanted to wait to see if they would reach out to me about this.

 

So you want GS to guess which of the millions of usernames it is that you are having a problem with?

I agree.

Anything that can help a very busy office take action without wasting to much time with guessing games, I'd bet is appreciated.

 

Thanks for all the help and advice everybody!! I updated my ticket for HQ and included the username of the cheater.

[+CacheMoneyHustlas]

 

Depending on the "infraction", the User could be suspended or banned. Most likely suspended, as such behavior doesn't really damage or impede any of the services of the website. If someone is doing this sort of thing in a relatively stealthy manner, it may take more than one report and further proof for Groundspeak to take action on it (e.g. log a Find, but no signature in the logbook for instance).

 

 

Groundspeak doesn't ban cheaters. I reported once a group of caches logging a lot a virtuals and ECs in such clumsy way that it was clear that it was physically impossible that they've visited the locations at all.

All I got was a reply saying that it's up to the discretion of the CO to delete the logs or not.

Cheaters are left to their own devices.

 

Exactly what this person does!! He logged 20 virtuals in 4 different states in the last 3 days, as well as supposedly being a "Gold Level Earth Cache Master". Along with more than 300 traditional caches in a weeks time, (which have apparently been stripped from him by CO's, I'm assuming.)

It all depends on how far apart the states are. And the amount of 300 in one day is a drop in the bucket now days with Power trails. Not saying you are wrong but that is what HQ does, check to see if it is possible. I found over 800 caches in one day doing a power trail.

They still could be fake logs like I just found out on some in my area. A kid wanted to hide a cache and faked logs so they would look like they were experienced.

 

Yeah,...this guy is definitely a fake and a cheat. I know because he said something about a cache that proved he had never seen it or been there. WOW!!! 800 caches in one day?!?! That is awesome!!! Where is that power trail??

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Depending on the "infraction", the User could be suspended or banned. Most likely suspended, as such behavior doesn't really damage or impede any of the services of the website. If someone is doing this sort of thing in a relatively stealthy manner, it may take more than one report and further proof for Groundspeak to take action on it (e.g. log a Find, but no signature in the logbook for instance).

 

 

Groundspeak doesn't ban cheaters. I reported once a group of caches logging a lot a virtuals and ECs in such clumsy way that it was clear that it was physically impossible that they've visited the locations at all.

All I got was a reply saying that it's up to the discretion of the CO to delete the logs or not.

Cheaters are left to their own devices.

 

Exactly what this person does!! He logged 20 virtuals in 4 different states in the last 3 days, as well as supposedly being a "Gold Level Earth Cache Master". Along with more than 300 traditional caches in a weeks time, (which have apparently been stripped from him by CO's, I'm assuming.)

 

Finding 20 virtuals in 4 states (assuming they're all next to each other) is quite possible as finding 300 traditional caches. A lot of geocachers have found a lot more than 300 caches in a single day and it would be pretty easy to drive to four states in day or two as well. Of course, If the states are California, Nebraska, Florida and Maine I might be suspicious as well.

 

 

[+justintim1999]

I don't really concern myself with such things. If it happens on one of my cache's I'll delete the log and move on. Repeat offenders might get reported but I'd much rather enjoy going out and finding caches than worry about if somebody else is posting bogus logs. It is a bit frustrating only because you wonder what the motivation is for these people. That and CO's have to spend time sorting out these bogus logs and deleting them in order to keep their cache find counts accurate.

 

There's been a lot of discussion of the detrimental effects that bogus find logs have on cachers and caches.

 

A search of the forum might prove useful as to why spammers and archair loggers do indeed affect all of us.

 

B.

 

How exactly dose this detrimentally effect cachers and caches? Before you hit the "really, are you kidding me" button, I'm only asking because I'd really like to know.

[+Touchstone]

I don't really concern myself with such things. If it happens on one of my cache's I'll delete the log and move on. Repeat offenders might get reported but I'd much rather enjoy going out and finding caches than worry about if somebody else is posting bogus logs. It is a bit frustrating only because you wonder what the motivation is for these people. That and CO's have to spend time sorting out these bogus logs and deleting them in order to keep their cache find counts accurate.

 

There's been a lot of discussion of the detrimental effects that bogus find logs have on cachers and caches.

 

A search of the forum might prove useful as to why spammers and archair loggers do indeed affect all of us.

 

B.

 

How exactly dose this detrimentally effect cachers and caches? Before you hit the "really, are you kidding me" button, I'm only asking because I'd really like to know.

One example would be the erroneous impression that an armchair log gives, regarding the condition of the cache, when in fact, it has a maintenance issue.

[+searchjaunt]

 

They do tend to ignore subjective complaints about "cheating" and leave it to cache owners to police finds on their own caches.

 

 

I would call undeniable facts that one logs a whole bunch ECs and virtuals in one day all of over the world far from subjective. Certainly when the concerned logger(s) can't account their supersonic journey.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I don't really concern myself with such things. If it happens on one of my cache's I'll delete the log and move on. Repeat offenders might get reported but I'd much rather enjoy going out and finding caches than worry about if somebody else is posting bogus logs. It is a bit frustrating only because you wonder what the motivation is for these people. That and CO's have to spend time sorting out these bogus logs and deleting them in order to keep their cache find counts accurate.

 

There's been a lot of discussion of the detrimental effects that bogus find logs have on cachers and caches.

 

A search of the forum might prove useful as to why spammers and archair loggers do indeed affect all of us.

 

B.

 

How exactly dose this detrimentally effect cachers and caches? Before you hit the "really, are you kidding me" button, I'm only asking because I'd really like to know.

One example would be the erroneous impression that an armchair log gives, regarding the condition of the cache, when in fact, it has a maintenance issue.

 

Another is that an arm chair log is a bogus log, and caches owners are required to maintain their listings by removing bogus logs. It creates extra work, that if not done, could result in the archival of the cache.

 

And then there is the issue that intentionally claiming finds on caches by posting found it logs one has not actually found demonstrates a lack of integrity, and saying that "it doesn't bother me" therefore nothing should be done about it, condones a lack of integrity in how the game of geocaching is played. Personally, I don't want a game that I choose to play perceived as one in which playing with a lack of integrity is deemed acceptable. I don't want land managers (that may or may not allow geocaches placed on property that they manage) to perceive the game of geocaching as a someone people play without integrity.

[+narcissa]

 

They do tend to ignore subjective complaints about "cheating" and leave it to cache owners to police finds on their own caches.

 

 

I would call undeniable facts that one logs a whole bunch ECs and virtuals in one day all of over the world far from subjective. Certainly when the concerned logger(s) can't account their supersonic journey.

 

Unless you are a cache owner confirming a find on a cache you own, geocachers are not obligated to justify or validate their finds to you.

 

False logs are annoying, but the affected cache owners do have the ability to delete those logs.

 

The greater issue here is this unnecessary monitoring and vigilantism. Sending harassing emails to other geocachers is something Groundspeak will act on. Tread lightly.

[+jellis]

 

Depending on the "infraction", the User could be suspended or banned. Most likely suspended, as such behavior doesn't really damage or impede any of the services of the website. If someone is doing this sort of thing in a relatively stealthy manner, it may take more than one report and further proof for Groundspeak to take action on it (e.g. log a Find, but no signature in the logbook for instance).

 

 

Groundspeak doesn't ban cheaters. I reported once a group of caches logging a lot a virtuals and ECs in such clumsy way that it was clear that it was physically impossible that they've visited the locations at all.

All I got was a reply saying that it's up to the discretion of the CO to delete the logs or not.

Cheaters are left to their own devices.

 

Exactly what this person does!! He logged 20 virtuals in 4 different states in the last 3 days, as well as supposedly being a "Gold Level Earth Cache Master". Along with more than 300 traditional caches in a weeks time, (which have apparently been stripped from him by CO's, I'm assuming.)

It all depends on how far apart the states are. And the amount of 300 in one day is a drop in the bucket now days with Power trails. Not saying you are wrong but that is what HQ does, check to see if it is possible. I found over 800 caches in one day doing a power trail.

They still could be fake logs like I just found out on some in my area. A kid wanted to hide a cache and faked logs so they would look like they were experienced.

 

Yeah,...this guy is definitely a fake and a cheat. I know because he said something about a cache that proved he had never seen it or been there. WOW!!! 800 caches in one day?!?! That is awesome!!! Where is that power trail??

Most Power trails are found in remote places like in the desert, Nevada, Arizona etc. I did a few but don't really like them since they are redundant and boring. You would be saying "Are we done yet" all day.

[+searchjaunt]

Unless you are a cache owner confirming a find on a cache you own, geocachers are not obligated to justify or validate their finds to you.

 

Therefore I report them to GS and they neglect it for whatever reason.

[+Touchstone]

Unless you are a cache owner confirming a find on a cache you own, geocachers are not obligated to justify or validate their finds to you.

 

Therefore I report them to GS and they neglect it for whatever reason.

If the reason is that they don't believe you, then yes, the option to not take action would be the logical conclusion.

[+justintim1999]

I don't really concern myself with such things. If it happens on one of my cache's I'll delete the log and move on. Repeat offenders might get reported but I'd much rather enjoy going out and finding caches than worry about if somebody else is posting bogus logs. It is a bit frustrating only because you wonder what the motivation is for these people. That and CO's have to spend time sorting out these bogus logs and deleting them in order to keep their cache find counts accurate.

 

There's been a lot of discussion of the detrimental effects that bogus find logs have on cachers and caches.

 

A search of the forum might prove useful as to why spammers and archair loggers do indeed affect all of us.

 

B.

 

How exactly dose this detrimentally effect cachers and caches? Before you hit the "really, are you kidding me" button, I'm only asking because I'd really like to know.

One example would be the erroneous impression that an armchair log gives, regarding the condition of the cache, when in fact, it has a maintenance issue.

 

Dose one armchair log really give the impression of anything? I get the integrity aspect of it but is ground speak really going to archive one of my caches because I didn't Knowingly or un-knowingly delete an armchair log?

 

Now if it's not a found but a needs maintenance armchair log than that's a different story. The first I can ignore, the second I'm forced to deal with.

 

So many cachers claim that the numbers are not the most important aspect of this game but when I read about all the angst regarding topics like this I wonder.

 

To me it's silly to allow this type of behavior to effect me in any way.

 

It only detrimentally effects you if you let it.

[+Touchstone]

I don't really concern myself with such things. If it happens on one of my cache's I'll delete the log and move on. Repeat offenders might get reported but I'd much rather enjoy going out and finding caches than worry about if somebody else is posting bogus logs. It is a bit frustrating only because you wonder what the motivation is for these people. That and CO's have to spend time sorting out these bogus logs and deleting them in order to keep their cache find counts accurate.

 

There's been a lot of discussion of the detrimental effects that bogus find logs have on cachers and caches.

 

A search of the forum might prove useful as to why spammers and archair loggers do indeed affect all of us.

 

B.

 

How exactly dose this detrimentally effect cachers and caches? Before you hit the "really, are you kidding me" button, I'm only asking because I'd really like to know.

One example would be the erroneous impression that an armchair log gives, regarding the condition of the cache, when in fact, it has a maintenance issue.

 

Dose one armchair log really give the impression of anything? I get the integrity aspect of it but is ground speak really going to archive one of my caches because I didn't Knowingly or un-knowingly delete an armchair log?

 

Now if it's not a found but a needs maintenance armchair log than that's a different story. The first I can ignore, the second I'm forced to deal with.

 

So many cachers claim that the numbers are not the most important aspect of this game but when I read about all the angst regarding topics like this I wonder.

 

To me it's silly to allow this type of behavior to effect me in any way.

 

It only detrimentally effects you if you let it.

Actually yes, one armchair log could possibly be an issue. Just a hypothetical exercise, but let's take the highest cache in the lower 48 States of the United States. Typically the approach takes 100's of miles of driving (unless you're blessed with living on the East side of the Sierra), and 2-3 days of hiking (it's possible to do in a single day push of 22 miles and ~5,000 feet of elevation gain). Two options on permits. One requires entering the lottery for the limited permits, which must be submitted months in advance. The other is to just show up at the Multi Agency Center in Lone Pine for the small handful of permits available for the "walk ins". Needless to say, this endeavor can take a few weeks of preparation at a minimum. I'm not sure what value you place on your time, but I would be extremely disappointed if the cache was reported in good shape by an armchair/virtual log, if in fact, it was missing.

 

It's not so much about the numbers for me, as it is a waste of the limited time I have available to pursue goals like this.

[+narcissa]

Unless you are a cache owner confirming a find on a cache you own, geocachers are not obligated to justify or validate their finds to you.

 

Therefore I report them to GS and they neglect it for whatever reason.

 

Yes, as I said, GS will take action on spam accounts but they don't seem to get into the weeds when someone has decided to police other people's profiles and reports a personal objection to someone else's finds. It is up to the cache owners to deal with questionable logs.

 

If there are fraudulent finds on your own caches, by all means delete them.

 

If you find a cache with numerous bogus logs, by all means use Needs Maintenance or Needs Archived to prompt owner action.

[+justintim1999]

I don't really concern myself with such things. If it happens on one of my cache's I'll delete the log and move on. Repeat offenders might get reported but I'd much rather enjoy going out and finding caches than worry about if somebody else is posting bogus logs. It is a bit frustrating only because you wonder what the motivation is for these people. That and CO's have to spend time sorting out these bogus logs and deleting them in order to keep their cache find counts accurate.

 

There's been a lot of discussion of the detrimental effects that bogus find logs have on cachers and caches.

 

A search of the forum might prove useful as to why spammers and archair loggers do indeed affect all of us.

 

B.

 

How exactly dose this detrimentally effect cachers and caches? Before you hit the "really, are you kidding me" button, I'm only asking because I'd really like to know.

One example would be the erroneous impression that an armchair log gives, regarding the condition of the cache, when in fact, it has a maintenance issue.

 

Dose one armchair log really give the impression of anything? I get the integrity aspect of it but is ground speak really going to archive one of my caches because I didn't Knowingly or un-knowingly delete an armchair log?

 

Now if it's not a found but a needs maintenance armchair log than that's a different story. The first I can ignore, the second I'm forced to deal with.

 

So many cachers claim that the numbers are not the most important aspect of this game but when I read about all the angst regarding topics like this I wonder.

 

To me it's silly to allow this type of behavior to effect me in any way.

 

It only detrimentally effects you if you let it.

Actually yes, one armchair log could possibly be an issue. Just a hypothetical exercise, but let's take the highest cache in the lower 48 States of the United States. Typically the approach takes 100's of miles of driving (unless you're blessed with living on the East side of the Sierra), and 2-3 days of hiking (it's possible to do in a single day push of 22 miles and ~5,000 feet of elevation gain). Two options on permits. One requires entering the lottery for the limited permits, which must be submitted months in advance. The other is to just show up at the Multi Agency Center in Lone Pine for the small handful of permits available for the "walk ins". Needless to say, this endeavor can take a few weeks of preparation at a minimum. I'm not sure what value you place on your time, but I would be extremely disappointed if the cache was reported in good shape by an armchair/virtual log, if in fact, it was missing.

 

It's not so much about the numbers for me, as it is a waste of the limited time I have available to pursue goals like this.

 

Wow! You got me there. I'd be a little upset too. Now back to a typical cache. How would this effect your normal every day cache?

 

It's too easy to use your extreme example as a legitimate reason to get all worked up about an arm chair log. Would it be an issue if after a few weeks planing the cache was still there and you found it despite the arm chair log? What percentage of cachers arm chair log? How many of those caches go missing right after an arm chair log?

 

Most of the time this type of logging hurts nothing but our sense of fair play.

[+Thrak]

There is a well known geocacher with (last time I checked) something like 50,000 "finds". I've met the cacher. I ran into him while he was looking for a cache. I found it on the opposite side of the road from where he was looking. As soon as I said I had found it he got in his vehicle and left but did log it as a find although he never signed the log or even touched the cache. I know he has logged caches as "found" even though he never actually found them because he was "sure he had looked in the right place".

 

I log caches only if I have signed the log. The only one I need to really care about is myself and I have no desire to "cheat". I would only be cheating myself. I figure it's the cheater's problem. If they need to inflate their number of finds to feel "cool" or whatever it's a pretty sad state of affairs but it really doesn't affect me.

[+dprovan]

There is a well known geocacher with (last time I checked) something like 50,000 "finds". I've met the cacher. I ran into him while he was looking for a cache. I found it on the opposite side of the road from where he was looking. As soon as I said I had found it he got in his vehicle and left but did log it as a find although he never signed the log or even touched the cache. I know he has logged caches as "found" even though he never actually found them because he was "sure he had looked in the right place".

I would walk across the street and sign the log, and I'd be surprised if any high numbered cacher -- i.e., "professional cacher" -- in my area didn't. But having said that, I can see how it would be reasonable for him to think that, first of all, the two of you were functioning as a team and, secondly, that you'd sign him in. Yeah, a little rude for him to assume that would happen without asking you, but I don't think it's cheating to log a find without personally holding the cache and signing the log.

[+hzoi]

There is a well known geocacher with (last time I checked) something like 50,000 "finds". I've met the cacher. I ran into him while he was looking for a cache. I found it on the opposite side of the road from where he was looking. As soon as I said I had found it he got in his vehicle and left but did log it as a find although he never signed the log or even touched the cache. I know he has logged caches as "found" even though he never actually found them because he was "sure he had looked in the right place".

That's one way of doing it, but definitely not the preferred technique.

[+captnemo]

edited to remove mistakes in posting

Edited October 27, 2016 by captnemo

[+jellis]

Many of you do or don't care how it affects you but if you let one armchair cacher do it then others will follow. Many of my caches I check the logsheets and yes I delete them if they didn't sign it. And some will contact me asking me why I deleted them and some won't knowing they were caught cheating. My way I am hoping they will learn that some COs do check their logsheets and hopefully they will think twice. Had some newbies saying they didn't even know they were suppose to sign it, they thought all they have to do is find it.

[+narcissa]

Many of you do or don't care how it affects you but if you let one armchair cacher do it then others will follow. Many of my caches I check the logsheets and yes I delete them if they didn't sign it. And some will contact me asking me why I deleted them and some won't knowing they were caught cheating. My way I am hoping they will learn that some COs do check their logsheets and hopefully they will think twice. Had some newbies saying they didn't even know they were suppose to sign it, they thought all they have to do is find it.

 

As a cache owner this is part of your responsibility.

 

As a cache finder, constantly fretting about other people caching wrong is a waste of time. When I see a bogus log I tell the cache owner. If I see a cache overrun with them, I log NM. If I happen to notice a spam account, I report it to Groundspeak. No need to constantly scrutinize everyone else and call people cheaters. Most geocachers are good people.

[ohgood]

Many of you do or don't care how it affects you but if you let one armchair cacher do it then others will follow. Many of my caches I check the logsheets and yes I delete them if they didn't sign it. And some will contact me asking me why I deleted them and some won't knowing they were caught cheating. My way I am hoping they will learn that some COs do check their logsheets and hopefully they will think twice. Had some newbies saying they didn't even know they were suppose to sign it, they thought all they have to do is find it.

 

how often do you check all of your cache logs?

[+justintim1999]

Many of you do or don't care how it affects you but if you let one armchair cacher do it then others will follow. Many of my caches I check the logsheets and yes I delete them if they didn't sign it. And some will contact me asking me why I deleted them and some won't knowing they were caught cheating. My way I am hoping they will learn that some COs do check their logsheets and hopefully they will think twice. Had some newbies saying they didn't even know they were suppose to sign it, they thought all they have to do is find it.

 

how often do you check all of your cache logs?

 

How often do you check yours?

[ohgood]

Many of you do or don't care how it affects you but if you let one armchair cacher do it then others will follow. Many of my caches I check the logsheets and yes I delete them if they didn't sign it. And some will contact me asking me why I deleted them and some won't knowing they were caught cheating. My way I am hoping they will learn that some COs do check their logsheets and hopefully they will think twice. Had some newbies saying they didn't even know they were suppose to sign it, they thought all they have to do is find it.

 

how often do you check all of your cache logs?

 

How often do you check yours?

 

About twice a day I trip over all of them.

[+justintim1999]

Many of you do or don't care how it affects you but if you let one armchair cacher do it then others will follow. Many of my caches I check the logsheets and yes I delete them if they didn't sign it. And some will contact me asking me why I deleted them and some won't knowing they were caught cheating. My way I am hoping they will learn that some COs do check their logsheets and hopefully they will think twice. Had some newbies saying they didn't even know they were suppose to sign it, they thought all they have to do is find it.

 

how often do you check all of your cache logs?

 

How often do you check yours?

 

About twice a day I trip over all of them.

 

Check all your cache logs and see how many bogus logs you find.

[+briansnat]

I don't really concern myself with such things. If it happens on one of my cache's I'll delete the log and move on. Repeat offenders might get reported but I'd much rather enjoy going out and finding caches than worry about if somebody else is posting bogus logs. It is a bit frustrating only because you wonder what the motivation is for these people. That and CO's have to spend time sorting out these bogus logs and deleting them in order to keep their cache find counts accurate.

 

There's been a lot of discussion of the detrimental effects that bogus find logs have on cachers and caches.

 

A search of the forum might prove useful as to why spammers and archair loggers do indeed affect all of us.

 

B.

 

How exactly dose this detrimentally effect cachers and caches? Before you hit the "really, are you kidding me" button, I'm only asking because I'd really like to know.

 

When you log a find on a cache you are essentially telling the community and the cache owner that the cache was there on that day. If it isn't cachers may waste their time and gas chasing a non existent cache. I know of one cacher who made a half day round trip to go after a certain cache that had a recent bogus find that encouraged him to make the trip. As a cache owner, I've had caches that had a few DNFs I was about to make a maint visit when a bogus find was logged. Thanks to those logs I assumed the caches were OK, when they weren't. That delayed needed maintenance and resulted in other cachers wasting their time and gas money on them.

[+jellis]

Many of you do or don't care how it affects you but if you let one armchair cacher do it then others will follow. Many of my caches I check the logsheets and yes I delete them if they didn't sign it. And some will contact me asking me why I deleted them and some won't knowing they were caught cheating. My way I am hoping they will learn that some COs do check their logsheets and hopefully they will think twice. Had some newbies saying they didn't even know they were suppose to sign it, they thought all they have to do is find it.

 

how often do you check all of your cache logs?

 

How often do you check yours?

 

About twice a day I trip over all of them.

Im curious. Is your ohgood name a sock puppet? Because I don't see how you check your caches every day when it doesn't show you own any.

[ohgood]

Many of you do or don't care how it affects you but if you let one armchair cacher do it then others will follow. Many of my caches I check the logsheets and yes I delete them if they didn't sign it. And some will contact me asking me why I deleted them and some won't knowing they were caught cheating. My way I am hoping they will learn that some COs do check their logsheets and hopefully they will think twice. Had some newbies saying they didn't even know they were suppose to sign it, they thought all they have to do is find it.

 

how often do you check all of your cache logs?

 

How often do you check yours?

 

About twice a day I trip over all of them.

Im curious. Is your ohgood name a sock puppet? Because I don't see how you check your caches every day when it doesn't show you own any.

 

Ohgood is my caching username. I don't know what a sock puppet is as far as geocaching terminology goes.

 

Earlier when I was curious and asked got often the poster checked, it was because I saw a comment about comparing and/or deleting logs that didn't match the physicals. From my guesstimation , checking on twenty or thirty interesting caches (not micros along a guard rail) might require a hours hike (or more?)for each one, and an hour (or hours) of driving in between.

 

That made me wonder how often a person like above would go out and check each cache log vs the online lists. I haven't looked up that persons profile to see if he/she owns one or one thousand.

 

My one cache that my family naively placed prior to finding out abbot all the permission forms for state parks and land owner is in the garage, and o do trip over it about twice a day. I don't think we will ever place one.

 

I know internet forums make curiosity sound like sarcasm, but that wasnt my intention.

 

Edited.

I just noticed you didn't answer earlier and it was another user that asked how often I checked mine. Oops I might have been replying to the wrong poster. Keeping up fail I guess.

 

So, how often do you check yours to compare vs online logs?

Edited October 28, 2016 by ohgood

[+justintim1999]

Many of you do or don't care how it affects you but if you let one armchair cacher do it then others will follow. Many of my caches I check the logsheets and yes I delete them if they didn't sign it. And some will contact me asking me why I deleted them and some won't knowing they were caught cheating. My way I am hoping they will learn that some COs do check their logsheets and hopefully they will think twice. Had some newbies saying they didn't even know they were suppose to sign it, they thought all they have to do is find it.

 

how often do you check all of your cache logs?

 

How often do you check yours?

 

About twice a day I trip over all of them.

Im curious. Is your ohgood name a sock puppet? Because I don't see how you check your caches every day when it doesn't show you own any.

 

Ohgood is my caching username. I don't know what a sock puppet is as far as geocaching terminology goes.

 

Earlier when I was curious and asked got often the poster checked, it was because I saw a comment about comparing and/or deleting logs that didn't match the physicals. From my guesstimation , checking on twenty or thirty interesting caches (not micros along a guard rail) might require a hours hike (or more?)for each one, and an hour (or hours) of driving in between.

 

That made me wonder how often a person like above would go out and check each cache log vs the online lists. I haven't looked up that persons profile to see if he/she owns one or one thousand.

 

My one cache that my family naively placed prior to finding out abbot all the permission forms for state parks and land owner is in the garage, and o do trip over it about twice a day. I don't think we will ever place one.

 

I know internet forums make curiosity sound like sarcasm, but that wasnt my intention.

 

Edited.

I just noticed you didn't answer earlier and it was another user that asked how often I checked mine. Oops I might have been replying to the wrong poster. Keeping up fail I guess.

 

So, how often do you check yours to compare vs online logs?

 

To be honest almost never. If I suspect that a log is bogus I'll look for the signature on the log during my next maintenance run.

 

I just don't think that it's all that detrimental to the game. It violates the guidelines and I'm sure in some cases it's caused a few unnecessary DNFs but contrary to some of the responses I don't think it's worthy of running out to my cache every time I suspect one.

 

The other issue was in response to the idea that Groundspeak could/would archive my cache if knowing or un-knowingly I didn't delete an armchair log.

 

Let's put the blame, and the punishment, on the actual guilty party.

[+MartyBartfast]

So, how often do you check yours to compare vs online logs?

 

I never have, and don't intend to start. By the time you consider that :-

 

• I might sign as any of MartyBartfast, MartyB, Marty, MB, or even just M depending on the space available.
  
• My signature might be in some random space in the sheet/book if it's full, or if I start from the "wrong" end.
  
• If I'm in a team outing we might choose to sign as a team so my name wouldn't appear in the log.
  
• My handwriting is poor at the best of times so when writing in the cold, with nothing to rest against it could be difficult to identify my squiggle as any of my likely signatures.
  
• Watermarks and smudges.
  
• Fading ink.
  
• ...
  

 

I imagine it would be similarly difficult to identify other cachers from what they write in the log, so I don't bother trying.

 

I have deleted several clearly bogus logs from my caches, and never had any complaints; and I have also left several that were slightly dubious but I gave the "finder" the benefit of the doubt.

 

It's a game and I'm not going to get out of my pram about it.

[+justintim1999]

So, how often do you check yours to compare vs online logs?

 

I never have, and don't intend to start. By the time you consider that :-

 

• I might sign as any of MartyBartfast, MartyB, Marty, MB, or even just M depending on the space available.
  
• My signature might be in some random space in the sheet/book if it's full, or if I start from the "wrong" end.
  
• If I'm in a team outing we might choose to sign as a team so my name wouldn't appear in the log.
  
• My handwriting is poor at the best of times so when writing in the cold, with nothing to rest against it could be difficult to identify my squiggle as any of my likely signatures.
  
• Watermarks and smudges.
  
• Fading ink.
  
• ...
  

 

I imagine it would be similarly difficult to identify other cachers from what they write in the log, so I don't bother trying.

 

I have deleted several clearly bogus logs from my caches, and never had any complaints; and I have also left several that were slightly dubious but I gave the "finder" the benefit of the doubt.

 

It's a game and I'm not going to get out of my pram about it.

 

Nice. I guess "when in doubt, walk away" has many relevant applications.