Bogus Cache Logs

[+larsslc]

I have just become aware of a cacher who logged 330 Virtual caches in one day. Strange thing is these caches were in the states of Arizona, Utah, Colorado, Wyoming, Nevada, Idaho, California, and New Mexico. The cacher may claim he found those caches over a period of days and just logged them all on one day, but on previous and subsequent days he logged other caches. I have found several of those virtual caches. One that I recently found takes a whole day to drive to and back and an hour to hike to the cache (Savanic Mine). There are many other caches he claimed that are just as difficult to get to. In my estimation it would take a least a month to drive to those 330 caches, hike to the locations where needed, and find the information needed to log the caches. His log on all of the caches was the same. I know that some cachers in Arizona are upset about these logs (see Photograph Arizona). In the past, when such wholesale bogus logs are discovered and GS is contacted, they have been reluctant to do anything about it.

 

In the west many cachers participate in the Lonely Cache Project. Caches accrue points based on how infrequently they are found. Bogus logs can cut the point values of these caches in half. Bogus logs can ruin this fun geocaching game alternate. I know cache owners can delete bogus logs, but I have found that often they don't, even when contacted. I would hope that premium members would be upset enough about bogus logs to push GS to do more about it.

[+Manville Possum]

I would hope that premium members would be upset enough about bogus logs to push GS to do more about it.

 

It does not matter if you are a premium member or basic, we are all on a level playing field here in the sandbox. I know that accounts that do that kind of bogus junk get locked when reported. Maybe you should report them?

[+cerberus1]

Are any of them your caches?

 

With Virtuals the few grandfathered types, I'd think their COs would be real careful that folks were doing what they needed to, to claim it found.

Word gets out they aren't, and it's bye-bye to that one...

 

Curious why you feel only premium members would be upset.

Why not all members?

[+Walts Hunting]

You should report the incident to GS and they will look into it and delete all of them at one time. Virtuals are dying out as time goes on. Contacting a specific CO probably isn't going to get much response. If you check the owners of virtuals you will find that many haven't been on the site in years.

[+cerberus1]

Lonely caches aren't only an "out West" thing, though you do have a site just for 'em.

 

Last time friends of mine went with me for a lonely cache, kinda sure was fake logged earlier, we simply posted a pic of the cache log with the Found It.

[+Manville Possum]

Curious why you feel only premium members would be upset.

Why not all members?

 

I feel the same way. I know that I started out as a basic member then upgraded to a PM for several years, now I'm back to being a basic member with about 100 PMO listings.

 

Groundspeak caters more to new members that use a phone and don't even own GPS units.

 

Bogus logs are the cache owners concerns, but we as the community frown upon bogus logs.

[+cerberus1]

Curious why you feel only premium members would be upset.

Why not all members?

 

I feel the same way. I know that I started out as a basic member then upgraded to a PM for several years, now I'm back to being a basic member with about 100 PMO listings.

 

Groundspeak caters more to new members that use a phone and don't even own GPS units.

 

Bogus logs are the cache owners concerns, but we as the community frown upon bogus logs.

I just went through a bunch, and there's one heckofalotta inactive Virtual cache owners in that area.

Bringing it up here in the forums may not have been the best move.

I'd be sorta surprised (but just sorta) if it was found the site "fixed" bogus Found It logs when the cache's CO is long gone.

[+Manville Possum]

Curious why you feel only premium members would be upset.

Why not all members?

 

I feel the same way. I know that I started out as a basic member then upgraded to a PM for several years, now I'm back to being a basic member with about 100 PMO listings.

 

Groundspeak caters more to new members that use a phone and don't even own GPS units.

 

Bogus logs are the cache owners concerns, but we as the community frown upon bogus logs.

I just went through a bunch, and there's one heckofalotta inactive Virtual cache owners in that area.

Bringing it up here in the forums may not have been the best move.

I'd be sorta surprised (but just sorta) if it was found the site "fixed" bogus Found It logs when the cache's CO is long gone.

 

This site needs a good clean-up of bad data, but it won't never happen. Owner-less listings should be archived along with the neglected ones.

 

We talk about Garmin and the pre-loaded caches on their new units being stale data, but look at the caches here that need a clean up.

 

I don't think Groundspeak is interested because it's all about the numbers.

[ohgood]

I have just become aware of a cacher who logged 330 Virtual caches in one day. Strange thing is these caches were in the states of Arizona, Utah, Colorado, Wyoming, Nevada, Idaho, California, and New Mexico. The cacher may claim he found those caches over a period of days and just logged them all on one day, but on previous and subsequent days he logged other caches. I have found several of those virtual caches. One that I recently found takes a whole day to drive to and back and an hour to hike to the cache (Savanic Mine). There are many other caches he claimed that are just as difficult to get to. In my estimation it would take a least a month to drive to those 330 caches, hike to the locations where needed, and find the information needed to log the caches. His log on all of the caches was the same. I know that some cachers in Arizona are upset about these logs (see Photograph Arizona). In the past, when such wholesale bogus logs are discovered and GS is contacted, they have been reluctant to do anything about it.

 

In the west many cachers participate in the Lonely Cache Project. Caches accrue points based on how infrequently they are found. Bogus logs can cut the point values of these caches in half. Bogus logs can ruin this fun geocaching game alternate. I know cache owners can delete bogus logs, but I have found that often they don't, even when contacted. I would hope that premium members would be upset enough about bogus logs to push GS to do more about it.

 

two things to consider:

1) is entirely possible to visit 10, 100 or 1000 caches and not log them, until later on in the week/month/year, with modern day smartphones. just because they were logged on one day does not mean someone cheated.

2) the burden is on the cache owner to check every physical log vs every online logged visit. since so many co's don't care, i would not expect them to go out and compare physical to online logs th times a month just to verify the data.

 

i don't see how ground speak could ever enforce it either way, for the cacher or the owner, since both party can lie and say something did it did not happen. it's basically a moot point if someone visited the cache or not. this is a big reason why i keep all my finds as waypoints, on my own device.... no matter what gc.com , the forums, the co, or anyone does, I still have the visits saved, right here.

[+dprovan]

i don't see how ground speak could ever enforce it either way, for the cacher or the owner, since both party can lie and say something did it did not happen.

Virtuals have ALRs, so GS could investigate whether any of the ALRs were attempted. They can do this even without an active CO by simply checking to see if the person claiming the finds sent mail to the CO or posted the required picture or whatever. If the finds are legit, then there will be evidence of ALRs, and everyone is happy. GS might perhaps send e-mail to suggest the person set the dates right, but that's about it.

 

On the other hand, if after checking a few of the finds and discovering no attempts to satisfy ALRs, GS could take action against the person claiming the finds. They could ask for an explanation or simply delete the finds or even block the account altogether. Likely that would be the end of the story because the person claiming the finds would realize the jig is up and drop it. It would only be in the unlikely case where they actually stand up and object to GS's actions that the situation gets sticky, and GS can decide at that time whether they can make a solid case or just want to back down.

 

If this was just one or two finds, then of course it would be left up to the CO, but when it appears to be a case of systematic cheating, it's logical for GS to step up and investigate, and they do.

[ohgood]

i don't see how ground speak could ever enforce it either way, for the cacher or the owner, since both party can lie and say something did it did not happen.

Virtuals have ALRs, so GS could investigate whether any of the ALRs were attempted. They can do this even without an active CO by simply checking to see if the person claiming the finds sent mail to the CO or posted the required picture or whatever. If the finds are legit, then there will be evidence of ALRs, and everyone is happy. GS might perhaps send e-mail to suggest the person set the dates right, but that's about it.

 

On the other hand, if after checking a few of the finds and discovering no attempts to satisfy ALRs, GS could take action against the person claiming the finds. They could ask for an explanation or simply delete the finds or even block the account altogether. Likely that would be the end of the story because the person claiming the finds would realize the jig is up and drop it. It would only be in the unlikely case where they actually stand up and object to GS's actions that the situation gets sticky, and GS can decide at that time whether they can make a solid case or just want to back down.

 

If this was just one or two finds, then of course it would be left up to the CO, but when it appears to be a case of systematic cheating, it's logical for GS to step up and investigate, and they do.

 

kind of sounds like whack a mole.

[+CanadianRockies]

i don't see how ground speak could ever enforce it either way, for the cacher or the owner, since both party can lie and say something did it did not happen.

Virtuals have ALRs, so GS could investigate whether any of the ALRs were attempted. They can do this even without an active CO by simply checking to see if the person claiming the finds sent mail to the CO or posted the required picture or whatever. If the finds are legit, then there will be evidence of ALRs, and everyone is happy. GS might perhaps send e-mail to suggest the person set the dates right, but that's about it.

 

On the other hand, if after checking a few of the finds and discovering no attempts to satisfy ALRs, GS could take action against the person claiming the finds. They could ask for an explanation or simply delete the finds or even block the account altogether. Likely that would be the end of the story because the person claiming the finds would realize the jig is up and drop it. It would only be in the unlikely case where they actually stand up and object to GS's actions that the situation gets sticky, and GS can decide at that time whether they can make a solid case or just want to back down.

 

If this was just one or two finds, then of course it would be left up to the CO, but when it appears to be a case of systematic cheating, it's logical for GS to step up and investigate, and they do.

If Groundspeak found that an owner of a virtual cache is not actively confirming that the virtual's ALR is being completed, then Groundspeak also is likely to warn the cache owner to start verifying this or face the possible archival of that virtual cache...which might not be a terrible side effect.

[+Manville Possum]

If Groundspeak found that an owner of a virtual cache is not actively confirming that the virtual's ALR is being completed, then Groundspeak also is likely to warn the cache owner to start verifying this or face the possible archival of that virtual cache...which might not be a terrible side effect.

 

I have seen too many ownerless virtuals to believe that they care.

[+Woodstramp]

This just a game. The world is full of people who love taking shortcuts, stealing and taking credit for things they did not accomplish. I can't fathom why they do it, but they do.

 

You will live a more stressless life if you just get over it. Play your own game...have fun.

[+Walts Hunting]

If Groundspeak found that an owner of a virtual cache is not actively confirming that the virtual's ALR is being completed, then Groundspeak also is likely to warn the cache owner to start verifying this or face the possible archival of that virtual cache...which might not be a terrible side effect.

 

I have seen too many ownerless virtuals to believe that they care.

They don't seek them out but a NA log will start the process but no one does that they just log it.

Edited July 16, 2016 by Walts Hunting

[Keystone]

If Groundspeak found that an owner of a virtual cache is not actively confirming that the virtual's ALR is being completed, then Groundspeak also is likely to warn the cache owner to start verifying this or face the possible archival of that virtual cache...which might not be a terrible side effect.

 

I have seen too many ownerless virtuals to believe that they care.

They don't seek them out but a NA log will start the process but no one does that they just log it.

That's very true - thanks for this post.

 

I don't seek out grandfathered caches to kill. But if someone complains, I can take action for failure to monitor the logs. Earlier this year, I missed responding to such a complaint. The complainer then wrote to Geocaching HQ. I was instructed in very clear terms to archive the grandfathered cache unless the owner cleaned up the logs. They eventually did delete some logs, while other loggers changed their logs from smilies to DNFs or notes. I took the heat on the cache page and in social media for being too harsh.

[+Walts Hunting]

If Groundspeak found that an owner of a virtual cache is not actively confirming that the virtual's ALR is being completed, then Groundspeak also is likely to warn the cache owner to start verifying this or face the possible archival of that virtual cache...which might not be a terrible side effect.

 

I have seen too many ownerless virtuals to believe that they care.

They don't seek them out but a NA log will start the process but no one does that they just log it.

That's very true - thanks for this post.

 

I don't seek out grandfathered caches to kill. But if someone complains, I can take action for failure to monitor the logs. Earlier this year, I missed responding to such a complaint. The complainer then wrote to Geocaching HQ. I was instructed in very clear terms to archive the grandfathered cache unless the owner cleaned up the logs. They eventually did delete some logs, while other loggers changed their logs from smilies to DNFs or notes. I took the heat on the cache page and in social media for being too harsh.

 

Thirty years in law enforcement taught me that whatever action you take someone won't like it. Politicians knw this so try to never do anything.

[+Manville Possum]

If Groundspeak found that an owner of a virtual cache is not actively confirming that the virtual's ALR is being completed, then Groundspeak also is likely to warn the cache owner to start verifying this or face the possible archival of that virtual cache...which might not be a terrible side effect.

 

I have seen too many ownerless virtuals to believe that they care.

They don't seek them out but a NA log will start the process but no one does that they just log it.

 

We don't have very many Virtual caches near me within 50 miles, but I did go back and look ate the two ownerless ones and they did get archived after an NA was posted. But that did not stop one from being logged around a year after it was archived.

 

I know that normally a NA gets a ownerless cache archived, except for one that I posted NA on several years ago, and I was the second to do so. The community got really nasty with me because on the NA that I posted. I use the cache as a TB Graveyard for my missing trackables now. I do maintain it now also for the community.

Edited July 17, 2016 by Manville Possum