[paleolith]

RiverCacher, on Dec 11 2007, 01:43 PM, said:

I have just determined that a U.S. cacher with over 2,000 finds has logged a virtual of mine, and I am positive that the cacher did not visit the site.

I'd say you have an extremely strong case. My first thought was that the few caches around that date could have been part of a family vacation where the other family members didn't want to spend time caching. However, his previous "finds" in Kansas, Minnesota,several other states, and Germany cannot be so easily explained.

This is a new variant to me. Apparently he is "finding" armchair caches to avoid gaps in his caching-days record. His page shows that he "found" caches every day June through November 2007. The days when he found out-of-state virtuals are exactly the days when he did not find any physicals. Now why he doesn't just back-date a few physical caches the next time he goes out, I don't know. But clearly it's all about the numbers for him.

Quote

Question: Do I tell the person, who appears to have a history of logging virtuals without actually visiting them, that I am deleting the log, or do I just do it in anticipation that he won't ever notice?

Since it's about the numbers for him, he'll notice (although he logged another armchair virtual on that date, and could always log another if you blanked a date on him).

Did you ask him point-blank if he visited the physical location of the cache? As I wrote earlier, if you make it a find-the-answer game, then the armchair cachers will beat you. This guy clearly isn't lazy, and his web page picture includes his wife and kids. Make it a matter of honesty rather than a game of wits, and send him the URL to the guidelines (cited earlier in this thread) if he disagrees.

And then delete the log if he refuses. And if he really pulls your chain, email all the other virtual cache owners that he did armchair logs on and try to create gaps in his record. Though there's nothing to stop him from back-dating a new virtual find (even a real one) to fill in the gap.

But remember the point made earlier: that the term "virtual cache" is often misunderstood to mean a cache that you don't actually have to visit, as in "virtual reality". Give him a chance to say he misunderstood, unless it's already obvious that he realizes what he's doing.

Edward

This post has been edited by paleolith: 11 December 2007 - 03:12 PM

[Harry Dolphin]

Proper maintenance by the cache owner is the key. This does not seem to be done in many instances. I can think of one where both the owner and the plaque are missing. You can get the answer from the sign at the trailhead, or on the map. Doh. Yet many people log it saying 'the plaque is missing'.
Another nearby required counting someting on the building. The building was undergoing maintnance for six months, and was completely shrouded. People logged it anyway, and the owner permitted that.
There were two on the Capitol Mall in Washington that were unavailable for six months due to construction (and secret service agents). Didn't stop people from logging them anyway (and the owners accepting the logs). And I really wanted to visit the Zero Milestone Mark. After a few months, the other got 'Alternate logging requirements'. Yeah, yeah. We don't want to disappoint the people who go looking for such caches, but owner maintenance seems very lax.
Is there a diffrence between people who get close, but not actually to the site, and find out the information somewhere, and people who don't get anywhere near close, and find the information somewhere?

[paleolith]

Harry Dolphin, on Dec 11 2007, 03:12 PM, said:

Is there a diffrence between people who get close, but not actually to the site, and find out the information somewhere, and people who don't get anywhere near close, and find the information somewhere?

To my mind, yes there's a difference. For me the point is to visit the site; the logging requirements are just to keep it as a geocache and not an online game. If I were maintaining a virtual and someone logged several physical caches nearby and also my virtual but had trouble meeting the logging requirements, I'd probably give them a pass. Or if they had photos. Etc.

Edward

[Harry Dolphin]

paleolith, on Dec 11 2007, 03:35 PM, said:

Harry Dolphin, on Dec 11 2007, 03:12 PM, said:

Is there a diffrence between people who get close, but not actually to the site, and find out the information somewhere, and people who don't get anywhere near close, and find the information somewhere?

To my mind, yes there's a difference. For me the point is to visit the site; the logging requirements are just to keep it as a geocache and not an online game. If I were maintaining a virtual and someone logged several physical caches nearby and also my virtual but had trouble meeting the logging requirements, I'd probably give them a pass. Or if they had photos. Etc.

Curious distinction. Sort of like not signing the log book, but claiming a find?
I've mentioned this one before: Count the number of stone faces on the building. I suggested that it should be unavailable until the shrouding came down. Many thought it acceptable to log it. I would have DNFed it, as I did the ones on the Capitol Mall that were unavailable.

[TrailGators]

I think Cezanne gave a very good explanation of why it is happening. I can see how some could construe some caches as being virtual reality caches. I think that idea has even been brought up in the English speaking forums (and shot down). Anyhow, understanding why people do what they do is important. Now that we know, we could simply tell them in a nice way, "Sorry but that is not the way the site intends for people to log virtuals at GC.com. This is how..blah blah blah...So from now on, please don't play that way." I thinks that's a better approach than brow-beating them.

[hydnsek]

paleolith, on Dec 11 2007, 03:35 PM, said:

For me the point is to visit the site; the logging requirements are just to keep it as a geocache and not an online game.

Would you make that same statement for a physical cache? If you visited the site but couldn't find the cache, would you log a find then, too? If not, what's the difference?

The logging requirements for a virtual are the equivalent of signing the logbook for a physical cache. If I don't visit the site, don't sign the log, or can't access the cache (or its virtual components) for whatever reason, I don't log a find. I agree with Harry Dolphin on this.

[paleolith]

hydnsek, on Dec 11 2007, 08:10 PM, said:

The logging requirements for a virtual are the equivalent of signing the logbook for a physical cache. If I don't visit the site, don't sign the log, or can't access the cache (or its virtual components) for whatever reason, I don't log a find. I agree with Harry Dolphin on this.

My point is to show some flexibility. If someone finds my physical cache and reports the log book missing, I won't object to their claiming the find. OTOH if they say they found it TNLNSL and don't mention being unable to sign the log, and I find out later that the log book was probably missing and their sig isn't in the cache, I'll wonder if they really got there.

If I'm doing an Earthcache, I'll certainly require finders to satisfy the educational component. Or if my virtual or mystery cache has an educational component, I'll insist on that.

If someone logs "I'm sure I got to the location so I'm calling it a find" on my cache, I might tell them to put their find where the sun doesn't shine.

OTOH, there was a thread about this not long ago, and someone went into quite a bit of detail about the different ways different people approach caching. I think that for me it's mostly about going to the place, but for some people it's even more so, to the extent that they get the sense of satisfaction from saying "I went there and I loved it". I think there's room for that, at least for caches that require a significant hike. Of the eight caches I've hidden, for only one is this even potentially an issue -- for the rest, if you have your eyes open when you reach GZ, you will find them. And for all but one (not the same one), you'll put in some effort to get there. So if someone puts in that effort, reaches the location (which I picked for the quality of the location, not because it was 1/10 mile from the nearest cache) and doesn't want to sign the log ... well, I have some problems with that, but I also think there's room in the world for it. At least sometimes.

Edward

[ooga booga]

I'm bumping this thread because I recently discovered I've become entangled in this scenario with one of my caches. I'm semiretired from caching, though I do my best to keep my caches going. The virtual in question is not the greatest in the world, but I've kept it going because it's over 5 years old and because it's not like there's going to be any more new virtuals coming along, so I see it as a bit of geocaching history.

Anyway, I noticed I've been getting a lot of visitors from Europe lately, which is a little odd for a cache in Kansas. But since they all had the correct answer, I didn't give it too much thought. Today I finally realized something was awry when one of the cachers tried to claim the cache with the password for the certificate on the log page, which is not the same as the answer for the virtual itself.

Upon investigating, I discovered that a lot of my recent visitors had found virtuals in 3 or 4 countries in one day (or one notable guy, who'd logged about 30 that stretched literally from Texas to Alaska), or found a physical cache in Europe the same day they'd found my virtual.

I edited the cache page to state that from now on, only photographic proof will be acceptable. I added that logs I deemed suspicious were being deleted, but if the cachers in question could provide some sort of proof they'd actually been there (even just a description of the surrounding area) that I would be happy to let them re-log.

The thing that amazes me is that several of the cachers in question have emailed me arguing that since they got the quiz answer correct, they should still be allowed to log the cache, even though it's clear they could not possibly have actually visited it in person. (The only ones I deleted were ones that provided almost no info in their logs/emails and had globe-trotting caching journeys.) A couple have even gone ahead and tried to re-log their "find"!

Quote

Hello,

We saw that our log was deleted.

We had the right word.

We found the name of the Restaurant via Google
and the adress via google Earth.

Then we found this homepage:

(URL removed)

We like to log it again.

The other thing that amazes me is that most of these are people with hundreds and hundreds of finds for actual, physical caches in their home country, are apparently members of local caching groups, etc. They seem to have no problem with traipsing through the woods to sign a logbook, so why do they consider it acceptable to fake a virtual cache halfway around the world?

I realize that geocaching is what we individually make of it, but I'm pretty unimpressed with that sort of mentality.

[paleolith]

I suggest that in addtion to requiring a photo, you make the direct statement in the description that "A physical visit to the cache location is required to log the cache". That might even be more important, since this trend appears to be a basic misunderstanding and not intentional abuse.

As discuseed earlier in this thread, it appears that most of these no-visit loggers do not have strong skills in the English language, and that most of the documents on gc.com are not available in other languages. The term "virtual" has turned out (in 20/20 hindsight) to be a poor choice, since it can so easily be interpreted to be related to "virtual reality" -- something that I just see on my computer and not in the real world.

To make matters worse -- and I just discovered this -- the main FAQ says

Quote

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.

which is WAY too easily interpreted as meaning all you need is the answer and you don't really have to go. (I know, it doesn't actually say this. But imagine yourself reading this in a language you don't know well.)

The LISTING guidelines state it somewhat differently:

Quote

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.

That's a little better, but in retrospect (now that we know this misunderstanding is rampant) it's obvious that even this is too indirect -- the part about answering the question is first, putting the cart before the horse. And in any case, I don't think it's reasonable to expect finders to read the listing guidelines. I did, but then I read reference manuals, food ingredient lists, um ... yeah, don't worry, I'm really OK. And even I would read a lot less of something in a foreign language.

So ... well, from your point of view, please email those links above (FAQ and listing guidelines) and point out the phrases "prove you were there" and "verify [you were] physically at the location". Then in your description say "AS WITH ALL VIRTUAL CACHES, A PHYSICAL VISIT TO THE LOCATION IS REQUIRED TO LOG A FIND".

But then ... how do we get TPTB to do something about this? First, they need to revise the FAQ to make it MUCH clearer what a virtual cache is. I'd also like to see a very prominent notification for virtual caches -- either right under the cache name or on the log entry page -- that A PHYSICAL VISIT IS REQUIRED TO LOG A FIND ON A VIRTUAL CACHE.

I think the official position is that it's up to cache owners to monitor the cache pages. But a lot of virtual cache owners are in the same position as you, no longer active in caching. Given how rampant this misunderstanding has become, I think it's reached the point of being worth addressing at a higher level.

And how do I report a cacher who is logging bogus finds? I don't see a place. For a cache I know to write the reviewer, but what about a cacher? Again, this has become a big enough problem that it needs attention at a higher level.

Edward

[paleolith]

Looks like you have at least on bogus log on your Mingalazedi View (Myanmar/Burma) too.

OTOH, based on your caches, it does look like asking for a photo is effective against this crowd. I have not yet seen anyone try to photoshop their way to a find. Too much trouble perhaps.

I nonetheless recommend including the statement that VIRTUAL CACHES REQUIRE A PHYSICAL VISIT to help educate this virtual crowd.

Edward

[Bad_CRC]

the one thing I probably understand least about this game is why so many people seem to be obsessed with trying to make problems with how others want to play it.

[paleolith]

Bad_CRC, on Jan 6 2008, 06:30 PM, said:

the one thing I probably understand least about this game is why so many people seem to be obsessed with trying to make problems with how others want to play it.

As long as the way they play it doesn't affect the way I play it, it doesn't matter. But part of the way I play is reading the logs, because I enjoy finding out what other people saw and remembered. So finding a virtual log with 2 real finds and 20 bogus finds is a bummer. These bogus loggers DO affect me.

Edward

[Team Cotati]

paleolith, on Dec 11 2007, 02:56 PM, said:

RiverCacher, on Dec 11 2007, 01:43 PM, said:

I have just determined that a U.S. cacher with over 2,000 finds has logged a virtual of mine, and I am positive that the cacher did not visit the site.

I'd say you have an extremely strong case. My first thought was that the few caches around that date could have been part of a family vacation where the other family members didn't want to spend time caching. However, his previous "finds" in Kansas, Minnesota,several other states, and Germany cannot be so easily explained.

This is a new variant to me. Apparently he is "finding" armchair caches to avoid gaps in his caching-days record. His page shows that he "found" caches every day June through November 2007. The days when he found out-of-state virtuals are exactly the days when he did not find any physicals. Now why he doesn't just back-date a few physical caches the next time he goes out, I don't know. But clearly it's all about the numbers for him.

Quote

Question: Do I tell the person, who appears to have a history of logging virtuals without actually visiting them, that I am deleting the log, or do I just do it in anticipation that he won't ever notice?

Since it's about the numbers for him, he'll notice (although he logged another armchair virtual on that date, and could always log another if you blanked a date on him).

Did you ask him point-blank if he visited the physical location of the cache? As I wrote earlier, if you make it a find-the-answer game, then the armchair cachers will beat you. This guy clearly isn't lazy, and his web page picture includes his wife and kids. Make it a matter of honesty rather than a game of wits, and send him the URL to the guidelines (cited earlier in this thread) if he disagrees.

And then delete the log if he refuses. And if he really pulls your chain, email all the other virtual cache owners that he did armchair logs on and try to create gaps in his record. Though there's nothing to stop him from back-dating a new virtual find (even a real one) to fill in the gap.

But remember the point made earlier: that the term "virtual cache" is often misunderstood to mean a cache that you don't actually have to visit, as in "virtual reality". Give him a chance to say he misunderstood, unless it's already obvious that he realizes what he's doing.

Edward

"is often misunderstood to mean a cache that you don't actually have to visit, as in "virtual reality".

And the sooner that some cache owner educates these people by deleting their found logs with an accompanying explanation as to why, the quicker they will learn how to correctly find and log virtual caches.

This post has been edited by Team Cotati: 07 January 2008 - 04:18 PM

[The Leprechauns]

Team Cotati, on Jan 7 2008, 12:40 AM, said:

And the sooner that some cache owner educates these people by deleting their found logs with an accompaning explanation as to why, the quicker they will learn how to correctly find and log virtual caches.

Dude, I know you totally meant to type "accompanying," so, like, I'm not calling you out on it.

[tozainamboku]

paleolith, on Jan 6 2008, 09:27 PM, said:

Bad_CRC, on Jan 6 2008, 06:30 PM, said:

the one thing I probably understand least about this game is why so many people seem to be obsessed with trying to make problems with how others want to play it.

As long as the way they play it doesn't affect the way I play it, it doesn't matter. But part of the way I play is reading the logs, because I enjoy finding out what other people saw and remembered. So finding a virtual log with 2 real finds and 20 bogus finds is a bummer. These bogus loggers DO affect me.

Edward

There usually isn't much to read in a virtual log even when someone actually does find a virtual. Many are park and grabs and since you don't want to put a spoiler in log many don't say much. I guess some that ask for a photo will have some nice pictures to look at, but otherwise, I'm not sure reading "Greetings from Germany" is any worse that "Thanks for the Virtual".

Of course some virtuals require a nice hike and like other hiking caches there is an opportunity to describe your journey to the cache - did you see any wildlife? did you have problems crossing the stream after the recent rain? were there any other people on the trail? I do enjoy the logs that I get on my virtual (GCGK2D). So far no virtual visits because I ask for either the answer to a question that so far you can't get on Google or for a picture of yourself at the location.

[kyk96]

wow, coming across this thread was very timely for us. i had NEVER heard of armchair caching until a friend showed me one at the "north pole". i thought it was a cute idea, though a bit surprised that it made it past a reviewer. anyway, just thought it was a cute idea, especially at Christmas time.

then i saw the numerous bookmarks of couch potato and armchair caching. at first i thought "kewl - a way to virtually visit places i could never afford to travel to". but then i went to the pages for some of those bookmarked caches and saw that some owners put statements on their pages that said they would not accept logs unless you had actually visited and it made me question the whole armchair thing.

oh, and there are some virtuals that have been grandfathered in that make the the whole issue murky. not to give armchair cachers another one to "find" but there is one here in Michigan that is a giant sculpture on a college campus. you don't even have to email the owner any info. apparently you can just log it? there are even pictures of the sculpture on the cache page and a description of the sculpture and what it does. we were in the area the other day and found some caches near it, but never actually visited the sculpture, so we didn't log it. I guess we probably could have. I won't until i've seen it, though i have to admit it is tempting.

btw, i never did the north pole one or any of the others. i don't know what i think - if they're bad, good, indifferent. mainly i never did any armchair ones because i HATE having to do hours of research online before finding ANY cache. But a cache that is solved only by researching online makes me want to poke my eye out. maybe if i was super bored and during a snowstorm when i was stuck in the house with a sick child and husband for two weeks.... hey wait, that was my december and i still didn't feel the motivation to do the online research for a virtual!

i LOVE virtuals. mainly because they take us places i wouldn't normally see and we get to learn about people and places. there are some great historical markers around here that are important and significant but are on private property and so would not work to be regular caches. they would make AWESOME virtuals! i'm sad that they can't become virtuals because one day i see them being completely forgotten and we will forget significant pieces of our local history.

[briansnat]

paleolith, on Jan 7 2008, 12:27 AM, said:

Bad_CRC, on Jan 6 2008, 06:30 PM, said:

the one thing I probably understand least about this game is why so many people seem to be obsessed with trying to make problems with how others want to play it.

As long as the way they play it doesn't affect the way I play it, it doesn't matter. But part of the way I play is reading the logs, because I enjoy finding out what other people saw and remembered. So finding a virtual log with 2 real finds and 20 bogus finds is a bummer. These bogus loggers DO affect me.

Edward

Being that they are also getting some of these virts archived it affects all of us.

[paleolith]

kyk96, on Jan 7 2008, 02:42 PM, said:

at first i thought "kewl - a way to virtually visit places i could never afford to travel to".

And hey, I have no problem with armchair caching, though I wouldn't do it myself. What I have a problem with is armchair caching where it isn't welcome. gc.com virtual caches are not set up as armchair caches.

Quote

we didn't log it. I guess we probably could have.

"Could have" and "should have" are not the same thing. Thanks for not logging what you didn't find.

Edward

[Cedar Grove Seekers]

paleolith, on Jan 6 2008, 09:27 PM, said:

Bad_CRC, on Jan 6 2008, 06:30 PM, said:

the one thing I probably understand least about this game is why so many people seem to be obsessed with trying to make problems with how others want to play it.

As long as the way they play it doesn't affect the way I play it, it doesn't matter. But part of the way I play is reading the logs, because I enjoy finding out what other people saw and remembered. So finding a virtual log with 2 real finds and 20 bogus finds is a bummer. These bogus loggers DO affect me.

Edward

Well said.

[kyk96]

paleolith, on Jan 7 2008, 04:10 PM, said:

kyk96, on Jan 7 2008, 02:42 PM, said:

at first i thought "kewl - a way to virtually visit places i could never afford to travel to".

And hey, I have no problem with armchair caching, though I wouldn't do it myself. What I have a problem with is armchair caching where it isn't welcome. gc.com virtual caches are not set up as armchair caches.

Quote

we didn't log it. I guess we probably could have.

"Could have" and "should have" are not the same thing. Thanks for not logging what you didn't find.

Edward

ya, we've never logged anything we didn't actually find. we don't plan to, especially after seeing some cache owners whose caches were bookmarked as armchairs state that they didn't WANT their caches to be armchairs. that bothered me. i wouldn't want any of our caches to be used for purposes other than what we originally intended.

[Googling Hrpty Hrrs]

robert, on Dec 11 2007, 06:01 AM, said:

cezanne, on Dec 11 2007, 06:35 AM, said:

In short, what you miss is that the concept virtual cache is not well-defined (without making reference to some sort of guidelines). I had numerous discussions with geocachers in my country who argued that virtual caches are stupid because one does not need to leave one's home (I need to mention that I like *real* virtual caches if they are well done and own one myself). This experience taught me that quite a lot of cachers do not know what virtual caches at gc.com are about (the probability that a cacher belongs to that group is somehow indirectly proportional to the length of the period the person is already active in geocaching).

If the virtual caches are stupid because you don't have to leave your home to log them, what does that make the act of logging them? The point of geocaching is to get you out of your home! Is it really geocaching if you sat in your chair and logged a bunch of locations you never visited?

Nein.

Doesn't that depend on what your game is?

If "their game" has more to do with rapidly increasing the number of smilies on their profile, and not long walks and fresh air, seems they may be accomplishing their version of geocaching.

[TheAlabamaRambler]

I am, without doubt, a Staunch Defender Of Everything Lame, and "Play it your way" is my constant refrain, but everyone draws a line somewhere, and I guess this is where I must draw mine - sitting at a computer in your house logging geocaches that you've never been to is, uh, lame.

That said, if someone wants to armchair log it's no skin off my back - or yours.

This post has been edited by TheAlabamaRambler: 07 January 2008 - 05:22 PM

[Bad_CRC]

briansnat, on Jan 7 2008, 02:57 PM, said:

paleolith, on Jan 7 2008, 12:27 AM, said:

Bad_CRC, on Jan 6 2008, 06:30 PM, said:

the one thing I probably understand least about this game is why so many people seem to be obsessed with trying to make problems with how others want to play it.

As long as the way they play it doesn't affect the way I play it, it doesn't matter. But part of the way I play is reading the logs, because I enjoy finding out what other people saw and remembered. So finding a virtual log with 2 real finds and 20 bogus finds is a bummer. These bogus loggers DO affect me.
Edward

Being that they are also getting some of these virts archived it affects all of us.

I'd question the idea that TPTB are sifting through each found log on virtual caches, or if the cause of the problem might actually be related to people complaining/whining about logs they don't like.

Don't care much either way, it's just an interesting phenomenon to me.

[briansnat]

TheAlabamaRambler, on Jan 7 2008, 08:05 PM, said:

I am, without doubt, a Staunch Defender Of Everything Lame, and "Play it your way" is my constant refrain, but everyone draws a line somewhere, and I guess this is where I must draw mine - sitting at a computer in your house logging geocaches that you've never been to is, uh, lame.

That said, if someone wants to armchair log it's no skin off my back - or yours.

It may be "fun" but it certainly isn't geocaching. If that is what floats their boat, that's great. Maybe they can create their own website.


As I mentioned earlier, it is skin off our backs if these virts are archived thanks to their activity.

Quote

I'd question the idea that TPTB are sifting through each found log on virtual caches, or if the cause of the problem might actually be related to people complaining/whining about logs they don't like.

Neither. TPTB will archive virtuals that are not being maintained by the owner. If they encounter one where there are numerous bogus logs it screams UNMAINTAINED VIRTUAL! to them. They don't seek them out, but they do run into them periodically and they do archive them.

This post has been edited by briansnat: 07 January 2008 - 06:24 PM

[Red Sky]

briansnat, on Jan 7 2008, 06:20 PM, said:

Neither. TPTB will archive virtuals that are not being maintained by the owner. If they encounter one where there are numerous bogus logs it screams UNMAINTAINED VIRTUAL! to them. They don't seek them out, but they do run into them periodically and they do archive them.

I love virtuals. When visiting a new town, those and earthcaches are what I look up to go visit. Our reviewer has warned us about exactly what you've said. Unmaintained virtuals, allowing armchair caching will be archived as well as TBs and coins that you haven't actually found.

And, since they have been grandfathered in, the rules won't allow a virtual to be un-archive. Our local geocaching group posts warnings whenever the "Germans" come to town, logging caches in our area.

[robert]

Googling Hrpty Hrrs, on Jan 7 2008, 07:49 PM, said:

robert, on Dec 11 2007, 06:01 AM, said:

cezanne, on Dec 11 2007, 06:35 AM, said:

In short, what you miss is that the concept virtual cache is not well-defined (without making reference to some sort of guidelines). I had numerous discussions with geocachers in my country who argued that virtual caches are stupid because one does not need to leave one's home (I need to mention that I like *real* virtual caches if they are well done and own one myself). This experience taught me that quite a lot of cachers do not know what virtual caches at gc.com are about (the probability that a cacher belongs to that group is somehow indirectly proportional to the length of the period the person is already active in geocaching).

If the virtual caches are stupid because you don't have to leave your home to log them, what does that make the act of logging them? The point of geocaching is to get you out of your home! Is it really geocaching if you sat in your chair and logged a bunch of locations you never visited?

Nein.

Doesn't that depend on what your game is?

No.

If they're playing their version of geocaching from logcacheswithoutgettingoutofyourchair.com that's one thing, but if they're using geocaching.com for these listings, they should go by the rules on the website, not ones they made up to further inflate a statistic.

From the main page: "Geocaching - The Official Global GPS Cache Hunt Site" (emphasis added by me).

How is what they are doing considered geocaching when the GPS isn't even turned on to "find" the caches*?




*the folks that actually find caches without using GPS aren't lumped in with this statement. Some restrictions apply. See store for details.

[Team Cotati]

robert, on Jan 8 2008, 11:38 AM, said:

Googling Hrpty Hrrs, on Jan 7 2008, 07:49 PM, said:

robert, on Dec 11 2007, 06:01 AM, said:

cezanne, on Dec 11 2007, 06:35 AM, said:

In short, what you miss is that the concept virtual cache is not well-defined (without making reference to some sort of guidelines). I had numerous discussions with geocachers in my country who argued that virtual caches are stupid because one does not need to leave one's home (I need to mention that I like *real* virtual caches if they are well done and own one myself). This experience taught me that quite a lot of cachers do not know what virtual caches at gc.com are about (the probability that a cacher belongs to that group is somehow indirectly proportional to the length of the period the person is already active in geocaching).

If the virtual caches are stupid because you don't have to leave your home to log them, what does that make the act of logging them? The point of geocaching is to get you out of your home! Is it really geocaching if you sat in your chair and logged a bunch of locations you never visited?

Nein.

Doesn't that depend on what your game is?

No.

If they're playing their version of geocaching from logcacheswithoutgettingoutofyourchair.com that's one thing, but if they're using geocaching.com for these listings, they should go by the rules on the website, not ones they made up to further inflate a statistic.

From the main page: "Geocaching - The Official Global GPS Cache Hunt Site" (emphasis added by me).

How is what they are doing considered geocaching when the GPS isn't even turned on to "find" the caches*?




*the folks that actually find caches without using GPS aren't lumped in with this statement. Some restrictions apply. See store for details.

I know, let's all see how much we can bastardize this activity known as geocaching, ok?

[ShowStop]

I think the archive note on this virtual says it all:
http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...8e-5890c65dbdaa

I guess he could have deleted the finds instead of archiving the cache. Archiving the cache certainly doesn't solve the problem. Its just disappointing to see this action taken because of those who choose to abuse the system.

[Mr.Yuck]

ShowStop, on Jan 8 2008, 02:31 PM, said:

I think the archive note on this virtual says it all:
http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...8e-5890c65dbdaa

I guess he could have deleted the finds instead of archiving the cache. Archiving the cache certainly doesn't solve the problem. Its just disappointing to see this action taken because of those who choose to abuse the system.

Whoa!! Everything was fine, up until November, 2006. Then after that, it's like non-stop "Greetings from Germany" Google finds.

I agree though, if the owner feels that strongly against armchair finds, he could have just deleted the logs, and required photographic evidence of a visit, or anything else he deemed necessary as proof of an actual visit, to put an end to armchair finds.

[Harry Dolphin]

TheWhiteUrkel, on Jan 8 2008, 06:49 PM, said:

ShowStop, on Jan 8 2008, 02:31 PM, said:

I think the archive note on this virtual says it all:
http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...8e-5890c65dbdaa

I guess he could have deleted the finds instead of archiving the cache. Archiving the cache certainly doesn't solve the problem. Its just disappointing to see this action taken because of those who choose to abuse the system.

Whoa!! Everything was fine, up until November, 2006. Then after that, it's like non-stop "Greetings from Germany" Google finds.

I agree though, if the owner feels that strongly against armchair finds, he could have just deleted the logs, and required photographic evidence of a visit, or anything else he deemed necessary as proof of an actual visit, to put an end to armchair finds.

I understand the frustration of the cited cache owner. Sure, you can continually delete the logs. But it is very frustrating to have to do so on a constant basis because there are so many people who do not follow the requirements. Mine's a webcam, not a virtual. It's a tough one in a popular place. And there is very bad cell phone coverage. And the weather can be quite ugly at times. It is not a 'gimmee'. The requirements are clearly stated on the page:

Quote

Post your picture (taken by the webcam) here as proof that you were there. This is required to log this cache!

Seems simple enough? You wouldn't believe the arguments that I've gotten into! No! Do not post a picture of the webcam! No! Do not post a picture of you taken by your digital camera! For goodness sakes! It's a webcam cache!! 78 finds. 38 notes. I do not remember how many I've deleted! Yes. It's a challenge. Yes. It can be difficult, if not near impossible at times. No. It's not a virtual cache. It's a webcam cache!
As I said, I understand the frustration of the cited cache owner.

[CYBret]

Well, it finally happened to me. I wonder what took them so long.

I got up this morning and found a log on my virtual cache. The name looked a little funny, so I checked their profile page out. Turns out they logged caches today in Illinois, Alabama, Michigan, Oklahoma and even the Netherlands (to name a few spots).

I sent the cacher a nice email explaining that they needed to actually visit the location to log it as a find. They deleted the find about 20 minutes later. That was easy enough.

Still, I hate to think that after 5 years I need to change the wording on my cache page to emphasize you have to actually visit the site to log a find. That's why there are coordinates at the top, right?

Right?

[paleolith]

CYBret, on Jan 10 2008, 08:00 AM, said:

I hate to think that after 5 years I need to change the wording on my cache page to emphasize you have to actually visit the site to log a find.

Which is why I think gc.com needs to change the presentation instead of taking the position that every virtual cache owner should monitor the armchair loggers. It's not just one or a few virtuals, it's nearly every one that doesn't require a photo posted. And I wonder how long it's going to be before the armchair loggers start using Photoshop to make the photos ...

Edward

[Jeep_Dog]

CYBret, on Jan 10 2008, 11:00 AM, said:

Still, I hate to think that after 5 years I need to change the wording on my cache page to emphasize you have to actually visit the site to log a find. That's why there are coordinates at the top, right?

Right?

First, I give you a standing ovation for keeping up with your cache. One of the bigger questions in this discussion is where in the daylights are all the other virtual cache owners who are allowing this practice in spades across the US?!?!?!?

Right - there are those that say "blah blah blah, play your game, let others play theirs, and shut up!", but sadly sometimes these things CAN be bothersome. For example, in December I logged the Buffalo Soldiers monument in Kansas - I've known the "answer" to the logging requirement for years, since I was a Squadron XO in the 10th Cavalry. Yet, I waited until I got back to the momunent to visit it before logging the cache. Two days later, in came the "greetings from Germany, I'm logging this cache." Alright, after taking some of Keystone's Chemical X, I am over it and not letting them detract from *my* experience and find.

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!

Unfortunately, and as terribly sad as this truth is (and I am saddened that we have gotten to this point), you probably do need to stipulate "go to the posted coordinates, visit the site, and provide XYZ answer (or other logging requirement)."

Perhaps Groundspeak demonstrated some wisdom in eliminating this category....

[Jeep_Dog]

paleolith, on Jan 10 2008, 11:44 AM, said:

And I wonder how long it's going to be before the armchair loggers start using Photoshop to make the photos ...

Uh, THEY ALREADY HAVE.

If you want a chuckle, click on the one captioned "The Plaque in Infamy", then go on to the logging requirement of a "certificate." Get a deeper chuckle understanding that the "certificate requirement" really isn't a requirement, but a myth for that cache that began as dry humor as to a way to log this cache from afar....

[CYBret]

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

Perhaps Groundspeak demonstrated some wisdom in eliminating this category....

I think they did. I know I saw some really lame virtuals before they were tightened up and finally done away with.

However, about a year ago I noticed that I only had about 17 virtuals left on my local PQ. By this time, virtuals were a bit of a novelty for me, so I set out to try to find them all. I'm now down to the final 9 and looking forward to a trip north to wipe out about 5 or 6 in the next month or so.

In the past week I drove over 400 miles and managed to do 3 virtuals. Dang....if only I had known I could stay home and save my money.

This post has been edited by CYBret: 10 January 2008 - 09:38 AM

[Bad_CRC]

I actually like virtuals. I've only found a couple, but they were in interesting places.

I find the silly logging requirements to be tedious though. jm2c.

[Dave_W6DPS]

paleolith, on Jan 10 2008, 08:44 AM, said:

..... And I wonder how long it's going to be before the armchair loggers start using Photoshop to make the photos ...

Edward

It has already been tried on my virtuals in Yosemite. So far, they have been easy to spot.

Dave_W6DPS

[Team Cotati]

Bad_CRC, on Jan 10 2008, 10:10 AM, said:

I actually like virtuals. I've only found a couple, but they were in interesting places.

I find the silly logging requirements to be tedious though. jm2c.

What do find to be so "tedious" and why is that an issue?

[tozainamboku]

Team Cotati, on Jan 10 2008, 12:40 PM, said:

Bad_CRC, on Jan 10 2008, 10:10 AM, said:

I actually like virtuals. I've only found a couple, but they were in interesting places.

I find the silly logging requirements to be tedious though. jm2c.

What do find to be so "tedious" and why is that an issue?

Why have silly logging requirements at all? If someone gets a kick by logging finds without ever visiting a cache it doesn't make any difference to how I play. I know briansnat has a friend who doesn't want to waste gas by driving 100 miles to look for a cache that isn't there. So he thinks you should actually find a cache to log a find (and you should log a DNF if you looked for a cache and did not find it). That way he can make a decision on where to drive to. I tend to avoid this by not driving all that way to find only one cache. And if I hike to find a cache is missing I have the attitude that at least I had a nice hike. If Uwe and Siegfried want to log virtual caches because they can guess the password to open up a certificate of achievement then more power to them. I would just like to be able to log my visit when I actually go find a cache. I think that Groundspeak's archiving of virtuals that have been armchair-logged because the cache owner isn't doing maintenance is only punishing me by preventing me from finding the cache. The armchair cachers still see the cache on the lists of armchair caches and continue to log it even when it has been archived.

[BlueDeuce]

tozainamboku, on Jan 10 2008, 03:23 PM, said:

Why have silly logging requirements at all? If someone gets a kick by logging finds without ever visiting a cache it doesn't make any difference to how I play. I know briansnat has a friend who doesn't want to waste gas by driving 100 miles to look for a cache that isn't there. So he thinks you should actually find a cache to log a find (and you should log a DNF if you looked for a cache and did not find it). That way he can make a decision on where to drive to. I tend to avoid this by not driving all that way to find only one cache. And if I hike to find a cache is missing I have the attitude that at least I had a nice hike. If Uwe and Siegfried want to log virtual caches because they can guess the password to open up a certificate of achievement then more power to them. I would just like to be able to log my visit when I actually go find a cache. I think that Groundspeak's archiving of virtuals that have been armchair-logged because the cache owner isn't doing maintenance is only punishing me by preventing me from finding the cache. The armchair cachers still see the cache on the lists of armchair caches and continue to log it even when it has been archived.

Geez, whatever happened to just going caching?

So the cache owner wants to play the game their way, or is it place the cache - ring the dinner bell.

[tozainamboku]

BlueDeuce, on Jan 10 2008, 02:01 PM, said:

Geez, whatever happened to just going caching?

So the cache owner wants to play the game their way, or is it place the cache - ring the dinner bell.

I would find that perfectly reasonable. We wouldn't have to read all the threads about people sharing the solutions to puzzle caches, not answering questions on earthcaches, relogging caches under their new user name after the team split up, attending events multiple times, not wanting to do ALRs, and so forth, if cache owners stopped being the log police. Place your cache and read the logs. Most will be "legitimate" anyhow. Sure you should still delete spoilers or logs with inappropriate language. Generally, fake logs are such a small portion of what's out there that you can figure almost everyone does go caching. It's not like briansnat's friend is going to waste $15 of gas every weekend.

Armchair virtuals are really the only case where I see a large group of people that are using the website for something other than caching. However, it seems to me that someone who does want to find caches can find these caches no matter how many people have logged them from their Sessel. In the meantime a cache owner who doesn't want to allow armchair logging can do so. Get rid of your certificates of achievement, make sure your question can't be answered except by visiting the cache or require a picture with the cacher or his GPS visible, and delete what you think are false finds. Your cache will be taken off the bookmark lists of armchair caches and you'll be able to manage the few if any remaining fake logs.

[Team Cotati]

tozainamboku, on Jan 10 2008, 03:16 PM, said:

BlueDeuce, on Jan 10 2008, 02:01 PM, said:

Geez, whatever happened to just going caching?

So the cache owner wants to play the game their way, or is it place the cache - ring the dinner bell.

I would find that perfectly reasonable. We wouldn't have to read all the threads about people sharing the solutions to puzzle caches, not answering questions on earthcaches, relogging caches under their new user name after the team split up, attending events multiple times, not wanting to do ALRs, and so forth, if cache owners stopped being the log police. Place your cache and read the logs. Most will be "legitimate" anyhow. Sure you should still delete spoilers or logs with inappropriate language. Generally, fake logs are such a small portion of what's out there that you can figure almost everyone does go caching. It's not like briansnat's friend is going to waste $15 of gas every weekend.

Armchair virtuals are really the only case where I see a large group of people that are using the website for something other than caching. However, it seems to me that someone who does want to find caches can find these caches no matter how many people have logged them from their Sessel. In the meantime a cache owner who doesn't want to allow armchair logging can do so. Get rid of your certificates of achievement, make sure your question can't be answered except by visiting the cache or require a picture with the cacher or his GPS visible, and delete what you think are false finds. Your cache will be taken off the bookmark lists of armchair caches and you'll be able to manage the few if any remaining fake logs.

News, self-promotion, technology and Xmas. That's what ruined geocaching.

This post has been edited by Team Cotati: 11 January 2008 - 06:31 AM

[RiverCacher]

Just to end the story, here is the note that I sent the guy who falsely logged my virtual. He never replied, but I know that at least one other virtual cache owner sent a similar note and deleted his log as well:



You and I exchanged emails a while ago concerning your log of the D-Day Virtual Cache in Virginia on __________ 2007. You emailed me the answers to the question as requested.

However, I do not think that you actually visited the site. This statement is reinforced by an examination of your cache logs...you found two additional virtuals in Virginia (_____, which is owned by a friend of mine, and ______) on the same day. The day before, you logged virtuals in South Carolina and North Carolina, and the day after, you logged virtuals in Florida.

However, you logged no physical caches in any of these states on those days, and by looking at your preference for finding a large number of "real" caches in California, I would certainly think that you would have logged at least one physical cache if you were on vacation here.

Perhaps you are not aware of the policy that a virtual cache must be actually visited to be logged. This policy is listed here: http://www.geocachin...ache_types.aspx

As you may know, virtual caches are very fragile, and have been grandfathered. It is up to the owners of virtual caches in special locations to safeguard the trust that we have with Geocaching.com and to make sure that people log legitimate finds.

For this reason, I will be deleting your __/__/2007 log. I wish you the best of success in your future geocaching activities.

[Snake & Rooster]

RiverCacher, on Jan 11 2008, 11:08 AM, said:

Just to end the story, here is the note that I sent the guy who falsely logged my virtual. He never replied, but I know that at least one other virtual cache owner sent a similar note and deleted his log as well:



You and I exchanged emails a while ago concerning your log of the D-Day Virtual Cache in Virginia on __________ 2007. You emailed me the answers to the question as requested.

However, I do not think that you actually visited the site. This statement is reinforced by an examination of your cache logs...you found two additional virtuals in Virginia (_____, which is owned by a friend of mine, and ______) on the same day. The day before, you logged virtuals in South Carolina and North Carolina, and the day after, you logged virtuals in Florida.

However, you logged no physical caches in any of these states on those days, and by looking at your preference for finding a large number of "real" caches in California, I would certainly think that you would have logged at least one physical cache if you were on vacation here.

Perhaps you are not aware of the policy that a virtual cache must be actually visited to be logged. This policy is listed here: http://www.geocachin...ache_types.aspx

As you may know, virtual caches are very fragile, and have been grandfathered. It is up to the owners of virtual caches in special locations to safeguard the trust that we have with Geocaching.com and to make sure that people log legitimate finds.

For this reason, I will be deleting your __/__/2007 log. I wish you the best of success in your future geocaching activities.

I'd say that is a very polite, diplomatic, yet firm email telling him why you are deleting his log. I like it.

[paleolith]

RiverCacher, on Jan 11 2008, 11:08 AM, said:

Just to end the story, here is the note that I sent the guy who falsely logged my virtual.

Well done!

Edward

[widdi]

Hi

I'm a german cacher. We're having an own german speaking forum in which someone who left germany to U.S. wrote a topic for that problem.
I've read two threads here in this forum too.

So I will tell you, what's "the intention" of logging virtuals for us/for me.

In germany/europe exists virtuals that you have not to visit. In the listings is written, that you have not to visit them, you can find there nothing to solve the cache. Many virtuals have to do with something special on a place. But you have not to visit them - you have to answer questions. Otherwise said: you have to work on a special topic for some time and earn knowledge. This knowledge you mail to the owner. He says "ok" and you log it.

The guidelines say "you have to visit". The cache listings say sometimes "you have not to visit". There is the problem.
Neither Groundspeak, nor the owners did something against logging without being present. Some cache logging prerequisite are "write an email, get an answer and log". I know a cache in US - that I've logged (my only virtual in US) because of misinterpreting the intention, where you have to do some research, and crack a password. With that, you get a a document, that allows to log. The owner did not delete the log. So it was ok... because... here in europe.. you have a lot of these caches. It's the interpration of that cache type.
If the owner will delete the log - ok, I accept and I'm not angry. NOW I know, that the intention in the US is another like in europe.
Other example:
I made a virtual in germany, collected answers, took a photo, mailed the owner.. mailed the owner.. I got no reaction. It wasn't a german owner (came from iceland). He didn't reply. I logged, because I fulfilled the conditions. That's the problem: the owner says what you have to do. And the cachers do what is wanted in the cachelisting.

The same way american cachers log german and other european caches too, although they didn't visit the caches. It's not a "german" problem (it seems that you are making it to something like that - that's unfair).
Cachers around the world do virtuals in that way. No one tells not to do. It's not an evil will, or something like that. No one will destroy caches or something like that. But geocaching has something like own dynamics.
So developed virtuals to something like "unknown caches without an ammo box". OK.. many say "geocaching is nature". I say "geocaching is nature/and or searching". The question is: what thing will you have to search. A box or an answer.
So we know two types of virtuals: only riddles, and caches with photo evidence.

The easiest way to solve the mass-logging-problem is, that you add the log condition "add a photo of you in front of...". Ask for an evidence for being on the location.
Don't blame the cachers. It's a problem in the system and mentality and developement of caching.

I hope you understand now a little bit better, why the cachers from europe do it like that way.

If there were some grammar mistakes - sorry for them ;-)

This post has been edited by widdi: 12 January 2008 - 05:04 AM

[MountainMudbug]

As much as it pained me to do so, I just added disclaimers to both of my virtual caches that you must actually physically visit the location to get credit for the cache.

I can't believe it would even be necessary to say that..... but apparently so....

[Rick618]

Guten Tag widdi,

It is called a German problem because there all at once was a large number of German cachers virtually logging virtuals, it wasn't just Germany but that seemed to be a majority of the false logs. Mentioned in the first post of the thread as Austrians.

Nice try, but the listing for a virtual covers the fact that you are to be present to log it, there is no need for the listing to state that. Interepreting the rules as you want them will, per the GC statement, cause the virtuals to be archived if the owner doesn't delete the false logs. All that has been covered back on the first page but just for repetition sake.

Virtual Cache
A virtual cache is a cache that exists in a form of a location. Depending on the cache "hider," a virtual cache could be to answer a question about a location, an interesting spot, a task, etc. The reward for these caches is the location itself and sharing information about your visit.
Because of the nature of these geocaches, you must actually visit the location and acquire the coordinates there before you can post. In addition, although many locations are interesting, a virtual cache should be out of the ordinary enough to warrant logging a visit.

widdi, on Jan 12 2008, 05:04 AM, said:

Hi

I'm a german cacher. We're having an own german speaking forum in which someone who left germany to U.S. wrote a topic for that problem.
I've read two threads here in this forum too.

So I will tell you, what's "the intention" of logging virtuals for us/for me.

In germany/europe exists virtuals that you have not to visit. In the listings is written, that you have not to visit them, you can find there nothing to solve the cache. Many virtuals have to do with something special on a place. But you have not to visit them - you have to answer questions. Otherwise said: you have to work on a special topic for some time and earn knowledge. This knowledge you mail to the owner. He says "ok" and you log it.

The guidelines say "you have to visit". The cache listings say sometimes "you have not to visit". There is the problem.
Neither Groundspeak, nor the owners did something against logging without being present. Some cache logging prerequisite are "write an email, get an answer and log". I know a cache in US - that I've logged (my only virtual in US) because of misinterpreting the intention, where you have to do some research, and crack a password. With that, you get a a document, that allows to log. The owner did not delete the log. So it was ok... because... here in europe.. you have a lot of these caches. It's the interpration of that cache type.
If the owner will delete the log - ok, I accept and I'm not angry. NOW I know, that the intention in the US is another like in europe.
Other example:
I made a virtual in germany, collected answers, took a photo, mailed the owner.. mailed the owner.. I got no reaction. It wasn't a german owner (came from iceland). He didn't reply. I logged, because I fulfilled the conditions. That's the problem: the owner says what you have to do. And the cachers do what is wanted in the cachelisting.

The same way american cachers log german and other european caches too, although they didn't visit the caches. It's not a "german" problem (it seems that you are making it to something like that - that's unfair).
Cachers around the world do virtuals in that way. No one tells not to do. It's not an evil will, or something like that. No one will destroy caches or something like that. But geocaching has something like own dynamics.
So developed virtuals to something like "unknown caches without an ammo box". OK.. many say "geocaching is nature". I say "geocaching is nature/and or searching". The question is: what thing will you have to search. A box or an answer.
So we know two types of virtuals: only riddles, and caches with photo evidence.

The easiest way to solve the mass-logging-problem is, that you add the log condition "add a photo of you in front of...". Ask for an evidence for being on the location.
Don't blame the cachers. It's a problem in the system and mentality and developement of caching.

I hope you understand now a little bit better, why the cachers from europe do it like that way.

If there were some grammar mistakes - sorry for them ;-)

[briansnat]

Quote

The guidelines say "you have to visit". The cache listings say sometimes "you have not to visit". There is the problem.

Since that is the case, I would think in absence of any instructions from the owner to the contrary, you need to visit a virtual in order to log it.

[paleolith]

Thanks, widdi, for the additional perspective. I do think it helps to understand how this situation arose.

Don't apologize for your English. It's a lot better than my German.

I agree it's not just a German problem. But at least on US caches, nearly all the armchair logs come from central Europe. Are you seeing a much larger number from Americans on German virtuals? I know there are Americans doing armchair caching -- some have been cited in this thread -- but most are European based on what I see in the US.

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.

It sounds like it would be a good idea to start searching gc.com for caches that explicitly allow armchair logging, and post SBAs to them, to make it clear to the armchair logging fans that this is not allowed on gc.com under the current rules.

Edward