[Ambrosia]

Jeep_Dog, on Jan 10 2008, 08:52 AM, said:

All this being said, I think, in answer to your "right?" question, that the guidelines "Virtual Caches... are special categories of caches that ask the seeker to find a pre-existing item to log" implies an actual visit to the virtual location. Makes sense to me. However, the guidelines only imply this, and do not say it outright.

Then, let's confuse the matter even more by saying "logging a virtual cache find requires compliance with the requirements stated by the owner, including answering the required questions by e-mail to the owner, providing original photos if so requested, etc. Answers to questions, hints or clues should not be placed in the logs, even if encrypted." So, if your "requirement" is "send me the answer to XYZ,", then some could interpret that sending you the answer is your only "requirement." In other words, I can understand how they are confused.

Yet, to me, it is obvious - visit the coordinates, get the answer! However, perhaps the quotes above or idiomatic when translated or something - beats me as to how this can be confusing, but apparently it is!

The listing guidelines do say outright that you have to visit the location, here: linky

Quote

Virtual Caches

A virtual cache is an existing, permanent landmark of a unique nature. The seeker must answer a question from the landmark and verify to the cache owner that he was physically at the location.

[Ambrosia]

As I mentioned in another similar thread, I have disclaimers on all my virtual caches, and hopefully make it perfectly clear what I expect from cachers. I mainly put them there so that I don't have to feel guilty if I have to delete a log. If they say, "oh, I didn't know!", I can point them to the cache page that they should have read.

Here's an example: Wood End

I got the html from ODragon's caches, and tweaked it to my tastes.

[CYBret]

I've just had a very nice note posted on my virtual cache.

Quote

There is currently a big discussion ongoing in the German Geocaching forum, where it has been told, that Americans are blocking "couch-potato-Logs" in their virtual caches especially from German geocachers.
(They seems to be bad guys)

Lot of emotions are arising and I would like to ask anybody, who is "holding" an VIRTUAL GC, to change the description to make it impossible for Google-Earth and/or Internet users to find the required log criteria.

If the log requirements have been found, even without being at that place: FINE! That guy spent some hours of his life to get these informations.

If the owner truly want to force other people to go there: FINE also, but the questions needs to be much more detailled.

It would be that easy to keep the good relation between US and German geocachers (incl. all geocachers of the "old" Europe).

I will try to copy that not to some other virtuals.
It may help to stop these ... unfruitfull discussions.

Greetings from Munich,

My response (which will soon be deleted along with the previous note....cache pages are NOT forums):

Quote

First of all, it's a cache page, not a forum. Your note doesn't belong here.

Secondly, this virtual cache has existed for over five years without the need of changing the text on the page. I'm not going to change it now. Perhaps you should encourage "armchair loggers" to actually read the guidelines on how virtual caches are to be logged:

Virtual Caches

A virtual cache is an existing, permanent landmark of a unique nature. The seeker must answer a question from the landmark and verify to the cache owner that he was physically at the location. (visit link)

Third, and finally, that guy did not spend hours of his life getting that information. According to my records he went there eight times in the span of 15 minutes until he guessed the answer correctly.

That's not how you log my virtual cache.

Happy Caching!

Bret

What really torques me here is I'm expected to change the text of the page to let people know that they actually have to go to the location.

There are coordinates on the page.

There are guidelines for visiting a virtual cache (thank you, Ambro)

The instructions for doing it are right there. Why should I have to emphasize the obvious? Unless.....

[tozainamboku]

paleolith, on Jan 12 2008, 08:21 AM, said:

If gc.com had a category for "online research cache", I wouldn't have any problem with that. I would ignore them, and I'm pretty sure that Groundspeak won't consider them, but they would not affect me in the ways that armchair logging of virtual caches affects me.

GC.com won't have a category for "online research cache". They have stated in another thread that the purpose of geocaching is to get you outside geocaching. There have been requests before for new cache types for caches you don't have to visit. There was even a cache type for cache where you visited something but it could be found anyplace (locationless caches). Groundspeak decided to remove locationless caches and replace them with Waymarking. Perhaps "online reasearch caches" could be a Waymarking category .

That being said widdi has presented a good explaination of historically how armchair caching came about and why many people continue to practice it. But I'll give my take on it again anyhow

In the early days of virtuals, TPTB allowed a great deal of flexibility. They were trying to grow the game and allowed all sorts of experiments to find things that would work. Locationless caches came about this way. A few caches were created that didn't require you to visit. They involved asking questions that had to do with some remote place that very few people could even visit. They generallly involved a puzzle or riddle to figure out what you would find. Or sometimes an internet search of the coordinates would reveal the answer. TPTB allows these at first but soon modified the requirements for virtuals to indicate that the virtual should involve answering a question "difficult enough that it cannot be answered through library or web research" or that an original photo be taken. However, like any other cache, the decision of whether to delete a log as bogus is still left to the owner. Some owners went so far as to state on the cache page that if you could figure out the answer you could log a find.

The real growth of armchair caching occurred when some virtual owners decided they could use a password protected document as a certificate that you completed a virtual. The answer to the question would be the password to open the document. The armchair loggers took this to mean that if they could open the document they could log the cache. Generally they would find the password by researching the location but some would use password crackers to open the document. TPTB saw the problem caused by certificates of achievement and changed the guidelines to address it: The use of a "certificate of achievement" or similar item is not a substitute for the find verification requirement.

With the creation of Waymarking, TPTB saw the problem of armchair logging of virtuals as just one more problem with virtual caches. Virtual caches could no longer be submitted. Existing virtuals barely held on as grandfathered caches. The guidelines were changed again. "The seeker must answer a question from the landmark and verify to the cache owner that he was physically at the location." TPTB use the maintenance clause of the guidelines to archive virtual caches that an owner has abandoned. One criteria they use is a cache that people are armchair logging. It looks like a fine line here. It appears that the virtuals that are being archived are the ones where the owner is no longer logging on to the site - per the guidelines: "You should also return to the Geocaching.com web site at least once a month to show you are still active. Caches posted and "abandoned" may be archived by the site." Clearly if you have a virtual and someone goes and finds it and sends you email with the verification and then reports to the site when they get no answer, it is just as likely a candidate for archiving as one where the absence of the owner results in armchair logs.

[Cpt.Blackbeard]

If the Germans and "Old" Europe really want to maintain friendly Geocaching relations with the US they could try actually reading and following the guidleines for virtuals instead of expecting us to allow their fraudulent finds.

[paleolith]

Ambrosia, on Jan 12 2008, 08:36 AM, said:

The listing guidelines do say outright that you have to visit the location, here: linky

Ambrosia,

As you say yourself, those are the listing guidelines. Personally I do not expect someone to read the listing guidelines for virtual caches unless they are listing a virtual cache, and since new virtual caches are no longer being listed, there's not much reason for new cachers to read that section at all.

In other words, that section puts a burden on cache owners, not on finders.

As has been pointed out earlier, this is at the end of a long document which is only available in English. Also, correctly interpreting the phrase "verify to the cache owner that he was physically at the location" requires pretty significant ability to read idiomatic English. Of course the meaning is plainly obvious to you and me (as native speakers), but I doubt I'd understand it clearly if it were in German, even though I studied some German back in the Middle Ages when I was in college. And that's if I managed to get that far in the document ... took me maybe 15 minutes to read it and study it fairly carefully, but it would have taken me hours in French or days in German, and a couple of semesters in any other language. By telling cachers to read the listing guidelines, you discriminate against those whose native language isn't English. That's why I am advocating more direct and practical approaches such as a prominent notice on the cache page or the log entry page for virts. This follows the standard CHI (computer-human interface) principle to provide information exactly when and where it is needed, not off in some document that you were supposed to read last year.

There's also a statement in another document to which I linked earlier (the main FAQ I think) which more cachers shold read, but it's even more wishy-washy and is also far down in a document avaliable only in English. And it still does not provide the info when and where needed.

I don't think it's practical to tell people to read a long document in a foreign language before they go caching. Heck, a lot of native English speakers won't read those documents. Some people who like outdoor activities don't like reading. No big surprise here I hope. That's just the diversity we have in humans. And that's why we have that CHI principle.

Edward

[paleolith]

Cpt.Blackbeard, on Jan 12 2008, 09:48 AM, said:

If the Germans and "Old" Europe really want

Putting "the Germans" into a single class and assuming they all think alike is just as silly as assuming all Americans think alike. The German speakers who have posted here, cezanne and widdi, obviously agree with the majority sentiment here and not with the armchair loggers.

Edward

[Ambrosia]

paleolith, on Jan 12 2008, 11:17 AM, said:

Ambrosia, on Jan 12 2008, 08:36 AM, said:

The listing guidelines do say outright that you have to visit the location, here: linky

Ambrosia,

As you say yourself, those are the listing guidelines. Personally I do not expect someone to read the listing guidelines for virtual caches unless they are listing a virtual cache, and since new virtual caches are no longer being listed, there's not much reason for new cachers to read that section at all.

In other words, that section puts a burden on cache owners, not on finders.

As has been pointed out earlier, this is at the end of a long document which is only available in English. Also, correctly interpreting the phrase "verify to the cache owner that he was physically at the location" requires pretty significant ability to read idiomatic English. Of course the meaning is plainly obvious to you and me (as native speakers), but I doubt I'd understand it clearly if it were in German, even though I studied some German back in the Middle Ages when I was in college. And that's if I managed to get that far in the document ... took me maybe 15 minutes to read it and study it fairly carefully, but it would have taken me hours in French or days in German, and a couple of semesters in any other language. By telling cachers to read the listing guidelines, you discriminate against those whose native language isn't English. That's why I am advocating more direct and practical approaches such as a prominent notice on the cache page or the log entry page for virts. This follows the standard CHI (computer-human interface) principle to provide information exactly when and where it is needed, not off in some document that you were supposed to read last year.

There's also a statement in another document to which I linked earlier (the main FAQ I think) which more cachers shold read, but it's even more wishy-washy and is also far down in a document avaliable only in English. And it still does not provide the info when and where needed.

I don't think it's practical to tell people to read a long document in a foreign language before they go caching. Heck, a lot of native English speakers won't read those documents. Some people who like outdoor activities don't like reading. No big surprise here I hope. That's just the diversity we have in humans. And that's why we have that CHI principle.

Edward

This is a good point. The language differences are obvious. But also, I've never really thought about the fact that they are the "listing" guidelines. They have so much info about caches and what they are, that every cacher should read (especially noobs!). But in the getting started section, they are listed as "A good document to check before hiding your first cache". Perhaps that should be worded differently.

I'm the type of person that reads everything and pokes around a site when I get started with something, to try and learn at least the broad basics. And, I suppose I started placing caches almost right away, and so I read through the listing guidelines then (and again, it seems that a lot of people either don't read those or don't comprehend them for whatever reason when they're placing caches).

[TrailGators]

paleolith, on Jan 12 2008, 11:29 AM, said:

Cpt.Blackbeard, on Jan 12 2008, 09:48 AM, said:

If the Germans and "Old" Europe really want

Putting "the Germans" into a single class and assuming they all think alike is just as silly as assuming all Americans think alike. The German speakers who have posted here, cezanne and widdi, obviously agree with the majority sentiment here and not with the armchair loggers.

Edward

I agree. This issue has nothing to do with being German or American.

[ooga booga]

I bumped this thread back from the grave, so I'll guess I'll toss in my two cents here.

1. Is there a part of this that comes down to regional differences in what geocaching is all about? Perhaps. It clearly seems much more socially acceptable in central Europe to "armchair log" virtual caches than it is here in North America. As I said before, many of my dubious logs were from people with many hundreds of physical cache finds, members of local cache groups, etc. - they aren't just "keyboard warriors" racking up bogus logs.

2. That said, cachers need to respect the wishes of a cache owner. And for virtuals in North America, I would go so far as to say that includes assuming that "armchair logs" are not welcome unless explicitly stated otherwise.

That also includes not arguing with the cache owner if your armchair log gets deleted because "it didn't specifically say you had to visit the cache". I went through and in one sweep deleted about a dozen recent logs on my virtual which I strongly suspected were bogus. Several of them actually tried to argue that since I didn't say "armchair logs" were forbidden, that they should be allowed to re-log the cache! One bogus logger even quoted back my confirmation email to their emailed answer (including my standard line "Thanks for visiting the cache!") as some sort of "proof".

3. The net result of this, as I see it, is this: That by people bending (if not outright breaking) gc.com's rules, they put at risk an already-dwindling number of virtual caches, either by getting them archived due to owner non-maintenance or by owners who archive them to avoid the hassle. I admit, when I had four or five upset emails in my inbox one morning from angry European cachers, wanting to know why I didn't like them Googling the answer to a cache in Kansas they'd never visited, the thought of archiving crossed my mind.

4. The bottom line is, it's basically selfish behavior. It's putting one's own quest for another smiley or a higher "found" number ahead of the wishes of a cache owner, the other cachers who actually trekked out somewhere to find the answer, and the spirit of geocaching itself. And it's a shame that it's so widespread among cachers who would probably never dream of logging a physical cache that they hadn't signed a logbook for.

[Cpt.Blackbeard]

paleolith, on Jan 12 2008, 11:29 AM, said:

Cpt.Blackbeard, on Jan 12 2008, 09:48 AM, said:

If the Germans and "Old" Europe really want

Putting "the Germans" into a single class and assuming they all think alike is just as silly as assuming all Americans think alike. The German speakers who have posted here, cezanne and widdi, obviously agree with the majority sentiment here and not with the armchair loggers.

Edward

It would be that easy to keep the good relation between US and German geocachers (incl. all geocachers of the "old" Europe).

That is the direct quote I was responding to, I didn't say it, the cacher from Munich did, I simply replied.

[tozainamboku]

paleolith, on Jan 12 2008, 11:17 AM, said:

In other words, that section puts a burden on cache owners, not on finders.

And that is exactly where TPTB have chosen to put the burden for all types of caches, not just virtuals. It is the cache owner who decides if he is going to delete logs because someone didn't sign or allow people to attend an event once for each temporary cache found at the event. In the same manner the cache owner is given the responsibility to decide what it means to find a virtual cache. The guidelines simple give cache owners some backing for when they delete a log from a cacher who appears to be armchair logging. The guidelines also require that cache owner to choose a verification requirement that can't be met by research on the internet.

You can argue all you want that putting a warning on the logging page that you must visit a virtual to log would stop armchair cachers. I doubt this. Some people have no problem attending events multiple times or finding caches multiple time. They will simple rationalize what they are doing to fit the wording on the page and it doesn't matter the language it is written in. In addition, you will anger a lot of cache owners who feel that it in their right to allow the variation of armchair caches or will insist that caches like Four Windows need to be grandfathered because if the warning applied here you would have no one logging that cache.

The point is that for historical reasons, some cachers feel that armchair logging is legitimate. TPTB have indicated a preference otherwise. They wish to emphasize the physical activity of going out and using a GPS to find things. But they at least understand that it is out of their control.

The only way to stop armchair logging is for each cache owner to take responsibility for his cache. While you shouldn't have to post a "no armchair logs allowed" message on your cache page, it might be a place to start. You should, however, select a verfication method that discourages armchair caches. You should remove any certificate of achievement or other automatic method of confirmation because these encourage armchair loggers.

ooga booga, on Jan 12 2008, 12:07 PM, said:

The net result of this, as I see it, is this: That by people bending (if not outright breaking) gc.com's rules, they put at risk an already-dwindling number of virtual caches, either by getting them archived due to owner non-maintenance or by owners who archive them to avoid the hassle.

I'm not sure what rules are broken. There are guidelines on cache owners and those that chose to place cache that can be armchair logged are the ones that put their own caches at risk. As far as I can tell, TPTB have never archived a cache because the owner allowed armchair logging. What have been are archived are virtuals where the cache owner has not logged into GC.com for months while people have be logging their virtual cache. Unlike physical cache where TPTB only archive a cache for absentee owner if there are DNFs or Maintenance required logs it seems it doesn't matter what kind of log is written, although a bunch of logs by cachers in foreign country does seem to raise a flag. If an owner chooses to archive his virtual rather than dealing with armchair logs, he is probably just realizing that his virtual wasn't very well thought out in the first place.

Quote

The bottom line is, it's basically selfish behavior. It's putting one's own quest for another smiley or a higher "found" number ahead of the wishes of a cache owner, the other cachers who actually trekked out somewhere to find the answer, and the spirit of geocaching itself. And it's a shame that it's so widespread among cachers who would probably never dream of logging a physical cache that they hadn't signed a logbook for.

I personally don't care how someone else wants to count finds. I tend to agree with the puritans when it comes to my own finds. But I know a lot of people who have a broader view of geocaching. The armchair variation is a popular one. If caches owners are allowing armchair logs it doesn't affect my enjoyment of geocaching the least bit. I do agree that if the owner of a virtual intends for you to visit the location and find some object to answer a question or take a picture, then it is presumptuous to believe you can log a find because you found the answer on the internet or you guessed the password for some certificate. However, it is still the owners job to find a verification method that makes it too difficult to armchair log the cache. And if someone tries, the cache owner must be the one to challenge the log.

This post has been edited by tozainamboku: 12 January 2008 - 04:37 PM

[wallace&gromit]

tozainamboku, on Jan 13 2008, 01:34 AM, said:

The point is that for historical reasons, some cachers feel that armchair logging is legitimate.

Hi! i´m from Germany and i just can tell you that "Virtuals" meant Armchair-Caches to me for quite a long time.
It´s probably caused by the way we learned about Geocaching here. Some german sites didn´t do a good job in explaining it, The guidelines were not available in German and mostly all of the few Virtuals were Armchair-Caches.
I do prefer real Caches with a real visit to the location an a real logbook if possible.
That´s why i never really got into Virtuals (except one wich also has a real logbook )
I really understand the trouble you have with us "Krauts" but i probably would have also logged U.S. Virtuals by mistake.

It will be difficult to tell all cachers here that it´s not OK. Not everybody reads the Forums.
Some probably won´t care cause they are only into statistics.

The best way to solve the problem is to ensure that the question can only be solved if you were really there.
Do not hesitate to delete fake-logs! As long as those guys get their find-smiley they will continue!

Greetings from Europe

Tino

[BlueDeuce]

wallace&gromit, on Jan 12 2008, 07:29 PM, said:

I really understand the trouble you have with us "Krauts"

No one here has a concern outside of the issue of logging caches. One of the best things about caching is that it makes all of us a community.

This post has been edited by BlueDeuce: 12 January 2008 - 07:12 PM

[TrailGators]

wallace&gromit, on Jan 12 2008, 05:29 PM, said:

tozainamboku, on Jan 13 2008, 01:34 AM, said:

The point is that for historical reasons, some cachers feel that armchair logging is legitimate.

Hi! i´m from Germany and i just can tell you that "Virtuals" meant Armchair-Caches to me for quite a long time.
It´s probably caused by the way we learned about Geocaching here. Some german sites didn´t do a good job in explaining it, The guidelines were not available in German and mostly all of the few Virtuals were Armchair-Caches.
I do prefer real Caches with a real visit to the location an a real logbook if possible.
That´s why i never really got into Virtuals (except one wich also has a real logbook )
I really understand the trouble you have with us "Krauts" but i probably would have also logged U.S. Virtuals by mistake.

It will be difficult to tell all cachers here that it´s not OK. Not everybody reads the Forums.
Some probably won´t care cause they are only into statistics.

The best way to solve the problem is to ensure that the question can only be solved if you were really there.
Do not hesitate to delete fake-logs! As long as those guys get their find-smiley they will continue!

Greetings from Europe

Tino

Tino, this is all supposed to be fun. So hopefully things don't get too serious. I'd love to visit Germany and have a few beers with you guys someday! Two of my kids studied German in high school so I'll bring them along to translate for me. Anyhow, all that can be done is to spread the word about the sites rules to the cachers that don't understand and to delete bogus logs with a simple explanation of the rules.

[hydnsek]

BlueDeuce, on Jan 12 2008, 07:11 PM, said:

wallace&gromit, on Jan 12 2008, 07:29 PM, said:

I really understand the trouble you have with us "Krauts"

No one here has a concern outside of the issue of logging caches. One of the best things about caching is that it makes all of us a community.

Well said! I don't get over to Europe (or anywhere) as often as I'd like (been a long time since I visited Germany), but caching helps close the distance - the forums, the TB travels, the coin trades, the visitors from afar that we hold events to welcome (next guest: sTeamTraen from France!).

[paleolith]

tozainamboku, on Jan 12 2008, 04:34 PM, said:

You can argue all you want that putting a warning on the logging page that you must visit a virtual to log would stop armchair cachers. I doubt this.

It won't stop them all. But it might stop 95%, just as requiring a photo seems to stop about 99%. I'm not after perfection, mostly just not having to wade through trash.

The feedback we've received on this thread from three people much closer to that community than you or I, is that most of the armchair cachers think it's OK because they learned caching that way, not because they are trying to perpetrate fraud. The historical perspective which you gave earlier in this thread (that armchair caches were at one time not in violation of the rules and were grandfathered when the rules were clarified) supports this position.

Quote

In addition, you will anger a lot of cache owners who feel that it in their right to allow the variation of armchair caches or will insist that caches like Four Windows need to be grandfathered because if the warning applied here you would have no one logging that cache.

OK, make it an owner option, an attribute. Would take significantly more effort to implement, but since it appears (based again on the history that you've provided) that armchair caches were grandfathered at one time, this may be appropriate. Or the message might say that logging a virtual cache without visiting is not allowed unless the cache owner says so in exactly these words ("this is an armchair cache", or "it's OK to log a find without visiting the physical location").

Quote

While you shouldn't have to post a "no armchair logs allowed" message on your cache page, it might be a place to start.

And if I owned any virtual caches, that's exactly what I'd do. (Anybody got a virt they want me to adopt? )

Quote

ooga booga, on Jan 12 2008, 12:07 PM, said:

The net result of this, as I see it, is this: That by people bending (if not outright breaking) gc.com's rules, they put at risk an already-dwindling number of virtual caches, either by getting them archived due to owner non-maintenance or by owners who archive them to avoid the hassle.

I'm not sure what rules are broken. There are guidelines on cache owners

The Geocaching FAQ says

"Virtual caches - A cache is actually an existing landmark, such as a tombstone or statue. You have to answer a question from the landmark and let the "cache" owner know as proof that you were there."

While that's the wording I've been saying is too wishy-washy, it is clear to native English speakers: answering the question is for the purpose of proving that you were there, not an end in itself.

Quote

I personally don't care how someone else wants to count finds.

I don't care as long as I don't have to wade through their logs. Let them say they have found 10,000 virtual caches, I don't care. But when I open a cache page to read some entries from previous visitors, don't make me sift through fifty armchair logs. Don't make me investigate which logs are physical visits to figure out how popular the cache is. (I started this after noticing that Rocky Oaks had suddenly become a great deal more popular than in previous years.) Yeah, I know, I'll have to wade through some TNLNSL entries, but I have seldom seen them take over a cache the way the armchair logs do.

Having an "armchair" attribute would resolve this too, since I could filter those out and never look at them.

Quote

However, it is still the owners job to find a verification method that makes it too difficult to armchair log the cache.

Can't do it. Raise the barrier, and anyone who wants to climb it will find a way. If there are armchair cachers determined to defeat the system, they'll find a way. They can share information far more easily than we can track what they are doing.

But the evidence presented here is that most (most) armchair cachers are not determined to beat the system, just playing a conflicting game. That's why I don't think bulletproof methods are needed, just practical ones.

If we were only talking about making sure new virtuals were written to make it clear that armchair logging is not allowed, that might be sufficient -- but there are no new virtuals, and many virt owners are no longer active in caching. If we could do non-consensual adoptions to save the good virtuals whose owners are not maintaining the web pages, that might be the solution (I'd be glad to take on a few) -- but non-consensual adoptions of grandfathered types are not allowed. Catch-22.

Edward

[tozainamboku]

paleolith, on Jan 12 2008, 09:15 PM, said:

Quote

However, it is still the owners job to find a verification method that makes it too difficult to armchair log the cache.

Can't do it. Raise the barrier, and anyone who wants to climb it will find a way. If there are armchair cachers determined to defeat the system, they'll find a way. They can share information far more easily than we can track what they are doing.

But the evidence presented here is that most (most) armchair cachers are not determined to beat the system, just playing a conflicting game. That's why I don't think bulletproof methods are needed, just practical ones.

The owner of the Rocky Oaks cache unintentionally invited armchair loggers by using a certificate of achievement with a password which he tells you is a number. It's not hard to open the the document in Word by guessing the number. Then he simply ignored his responsibility to do quality assurance of his logs. After a few people found they could get a cheap smiley they began telling friends about it being an armchair cache.

The verification for my virtual is also to count something. But by the time I hid my virtual it was clear to me that a certificate of achievement was just a way to ignore your responsibility as a cache owner. Because of this I have not had a problem with false logs. It's very simple for owners to correct the problem. It is not simple once you ask Groundspeak to do it. First of all you will get a big backlash from the people who do find the armchair caches where the owners allow it. Second, Groundspeak is already on record of leaving it to cache owners to decide what is a legitimate find. They do so because no matter what messages they put on the log page, people will log finds and owners will let them.

Quote

If we were only talking about making sure new virtuals were written to make it clear that armchair logging is not allowed, that might be sufficient -- but there are no new virtuals, and many virt owners are no longer active in caching. If we could do non-consensual adoptions to save the good virtuals whose owners are not maintaining the web pages, that might be the solution (I'd be glad to take on a few) -- but non-consensual adoptions of grandfathered types are not allowed. Catch-22.

I think TPTB are relying on this. They really wanted to remove virtuals outright from Geocaching but went the easier route of grandfathering existing virtuals. I think they hope that eventually all owners of virtuals will stop geocaching and they can archive them.

[asaxist]

How 'bout folks who behave in an honorable manner, yet still get a smiley denial because they were the last person who logged, and their only crime was to notify the owner that the log was full, and they should replace the log. I was on a geocaching vacation last October, it cost a lot of vacation time and $$ to travel over 3600 miles, therefore totally depleting my geo-repair supplies. I arrived at GCQWMT, Jamison City cache, by BYJER. I researched the cache, i drove to the cache, I found the cache, I l signed and logged the cache. I was notified by the owner, BYJER that because I was the last person to log, that if I did not replace the log, I was responsible for the log. I Dunno, I thought geocaching was supposed to be fun, for the whole family. To me, that is totally like punishing the person who, living in a community, notifies the person in charge that the milk is empty, or that the toilet paper is out, only to punished for the good deed of notification. I have several geocaches, ( not hundreds, I cannot maintain so many) I feel it is MY RESPONSIBILITY to maintain those geocaches, and those travelling 'cachers.... welcome, hope you find it, if it's been muggled, let me know. if there is a problem, let me know. In other words, My cache is MY responsibility, not others. whaddyathink?

[Vinny & Sue Team]

asaxist, on Jan 13 2008, 04:33 AM, said:

How 'bout folks who behave in an honorable manner, yet still get a smiley denial because they were the last person who logged, and their only crime was to notify the owner that the log was full, and they should replace the log. I was on a geocaching vacation last October, it cost a lot of vacation time and $$ to travel over 3600 miles, therefore totally depleting my geo-repair supplies. I arrived at GCQWMT, Jamison City cache, by BYJER. I researched the cache, i drove to the cache, I found the cache, I l signed and logged the cache. I was notified by the owner, BYJER that because I was the last person to log, that if I did not replace the log, I was responsible for the log. I Dunno, I thought geocaching was supposed to be fun, for the whole family. To me, that is totally like punishing the person who, living in a community, notifies the person in charge that the milk is empty, or that the toilet paper is out, only to punished for the good deed of notification. I have several geocaches, ( not hundreds, I cannot maintain so many) I feel it is MY RESPONSIBILITY to maintain those geocaches, and those travelling 'cachers.... welcome, hope you find it, if it's been muggled, let me know. if there is a problem, let me know. In other words, My cache is MY responsibility, not others. whaddyathink?

This is an entirely separate issue; if it is important to you, I suggest that you take it up in a new thread dedicated to that issue.

[bevema]

I'm a cacher from Austria, addicted to this hobby since 19842004.
IMHO its a quite small group of obsessive armchair-cachers, which maybe haven't got the grip on the guidelines forbidding logging virtuals without visiting them in real.

Maybe a kind of blacklist should be set up, maybe fed anonymously.
All cachernames often found on faked logs in virtuals could be placed there, as warning for others.

I visited a concerned virtual today, and found some familiar names.
Looking them up, I saw logs from the States, the Netherlands and Germany within two days.
Quite impressing, this jetsetting cacher scene...

This post has been edited by bevema: 21 January 2008 - 07:20 AM

[Cav Scout]

Geocaching been around since 1984?

bevema, on Jan 20 2008, 02:48 PM, said:

I'm a cacher from Austria, addicted to this hobby since 1984.

[Mr.Yuck]

Cav Scout, on Jan 20 2008, 02:59 PM, said:

Geocaching been around since 1984?

bevema, on Jan 20 2008, 02:48 PM, said:

I'm a cacher from Austria, addicted to this hobby since 1984.

Give or take 20 years. I'm sure he meant 2004. Anyways, I have to say, this is the first time ever I've seen a resident of Europe say that they understand the guidelines as far as a visit to the cache site being required for virtuals. I really think it's mostly the language barrier that leads to this misunderstanding. I'm also thinking the armchair logging is mostly "monkey see, monkey do", and that this group of European armchair loggers (which believe me, isn't "small") find all the Googleable (thats a word I just invented) virtuals by surfing each others profiles.

[eagletrek]

Oh hell, it's time to send out the hit squads!!!!!! I seem to remember in the not so distant past that some of those European folks were real good at following orders/instructions!!!!

[bevema]

eagletrek, on Jan 21 2008, 12:07 AM, said:

Oh hell, it's time to send out the hit squads!!!!!! I seem to remember in the not so distant past that some of those European folks were real good at following orders/instructions!!!!

Allright, I've meant 2004, shame on me.

Boys from the States still seem quite interested in following orders, looking at the various actual places of war throughout the world .

But back to the topic, when I logged my two virtuals, I also haven't read the guidelines. My luck was that beside getting one new icon into the profile this looked pretty lame to me.

Speaking of hit squads, would you prefer hundreds of archived virtuals?

This post has been edited by bevema: 21 January 2008 - 04:09 AM