How Do We Handle Cheating?

November 25, 2004

Hi,

I've yet to be 100% sure, but a member posted a "Did not find" on one of my caches (Hawkes Hideaway). I have been there, and confirmed this, and had intended to get a new one down there tomorrow.

However, I have just received notification from another member that they have found it! This seemed odd, so I had another look this morning, and I still can't see it.

I've e-mailed them, as I suppose it's possible the cache has strayed from its initial waypoint, and therefore I am off track. It seems to me though that they might be claiming caches to get their number up, as they were doing this as part of an all day hunt. I hope I'm not being too cynical here!

So, my point. Can I - as owner of the cache - write to the powers that be, asking them to dock finds on my caches? This would only be a last resort, and I doubt I'll do it on this occasion, but it seems that foul play could be afoot!

Thanks

Richard

November 25, 2004

There might be a more simple answer ... in that perhaps the cacher who logged a find did so just before it got muggled??

Or got his dates wrong?

Ullium.

November 25, 2004

You don't have to write to the powers that be, you as the cache owner have the final say.

So you went to your cache and found that the cache was not there, or at least, you could not find it. The next thing to do is e-mail the last finder and see what they say. If they say -oh, we found it to the left of the park bench, and you verify that it is there, and they have signed the log, the find counts.

If you get no answer, or they say it is there and it's not, then the best thing to do is advise that you have no proof they visited. However, here's the catch - how do we know that the cache was found by them, replaced and went missing? It's a judgement call and best left to you and the last finders.

What I would advise is come to a gentleman's agreement - you replace the cache, they visit again, and the find stands.

But if foul play is afoot, you as the cache owner can take action.

By deleting another cacher's log, the log is archived, no longer appears on your cache page and their numbers found decrease by 1. If (and this has happened before) cachers are logging falsely, then you need to see what this cacher found last, then e-mail the owner of other caches and get them to check if the logbook ties up with the logs on the cache page.

It's an important part of cache maintenance, checking the log book against the cache pages. I've caught one or two 'bogus' loggers in my time!

Hope this helps.

November 25, 2004

Yes, as with klaus23, it's your cache and you have powers to delete a logged entry. Hope you haven't jumped the gun here as it's transparent who the cacher is! The proof is in the logbook (if you can find it!). The resolution is in communication!

November 25, 2004

One of our caches went missing some time ago, the last finder emailed us to say "I think that we might have put it back in the wrong place" so we went and searched, and searched... and then replaced it.

Months later one of the on-line logs said "took ???? left ????" and we realised that the item taken was in the original cache, not the new one, so we went back and searched again, and again but couldn't find it.

After several maintenance/search trips we found the original cache container, in perfect condition about 4ft from its original location - with a log entry written during its 'missing in action' period.

November 25, 2004

By deleting another cacher's log, the log is archived, no longer appears on your cache page and their numbers found decrease by 1.

We also found that cache owners can delete a log entry even if they don't like what you write...on our last trip around Snowdon we did a cache and wrote something like "didn't enjoy this one, a hard climb to the cache site and cost us £2 for the privilege" (car parking charge). They deleted our entry and ignorned two emails to them asking why, even offering to change our wording, after a week of no replies we just logged it again as "found, cache in good order"...this they must have approved because they didn't delete it the second time.

The moral is 'watch what you write'

Des & Bren

snerdbe

November 25, 2004

Guys that's great. I didn't know deleting the log would reduce their count. I will indeed go hunting for the cache again at lunchtime, and wait a while for a reply from the member before taking drastic action! It's all just for fun after all isn't it?

All of a sudden I've come over with an all-powerful feeling!

Thanks

Richard

November 25, 2004

Does it really matter....its not like cheating in exams or something.

If someone wantds to cheat they'll cheat.

Its on their conscience.

Mind you if they have been making a personal gain out of this like gaining recognition, power, or drinks in the pub...then out the bams and make them say albatross backwards....That'll teach them. hehehehe <_<

November 25, 2004

There have been quite a few 'cheats' messages over the years I've been caching.

At the end of the day the only person they are cheating are themselves. The problem with logging a cache as found, when it actually isn't there, is that someone else will try for the cache and not be able to find it hence wasting their time.

So I guess logging a cache as found, when actually it wasn't, is cheating the next person that goes hunting for it.

Yes, this makes sense. So logging a cache makes the logger a cheat. They also cheat the next hunters and the owner won't know when to do a maintance visit.

I guess thats three people it effects. <_<

Just my opinion, if anyone cares??

November 25, 2004

I'm sure all the other Sparticus's care! <_<

November 26, 2004

You lot are beginning to sound like my old school teachers with the "You're only cheating yourself line" ! :laughing:

I've hunted high and low (Isn't that an "A-Ha" song?!) for this cache, and it's absolutely positively not there. If I search any harder it would have to be on the moon!

I take your point about cheating the next person who hunts for it, because I often decide whether to look for a cache based on its last find. I never trust one that was last found 3 months ago! Although perhaps I should be less sceptical.

Still no reply, so I'll give them till Monday and then delete the log.

Cheers all

Richard

November 26, 2004

JUMBO VILLAGE - the iron rod of caching justice :laughing:

Always harsh, but always fair!!!

House Of Boo

November 26, 2004

You could always type a note on the cache page "outing" the "cheaters" and embarassing them publicly! They probably wouldn't care too much but it might cause them to change their log.

As Pyoung1 said, I would exhaust all forms of communication first.

November 26, 2004

I would wait a little longer... to me, the log looked genuine.

Maybe you and the other cacher could arrange to meet and see if he can point out where the box got to?

3.8k · November 26, 2004

Yep klaus23 is right. its harder to find your own cache because you know where it is/should be.

I went to check on one of mine and thought it had gone but it had been moved only about 2 ft but I only spotted it by chance

But if they are not replying to your email, it is hard to find out if its true or not. They can always re-log it if they can prove they found it

2.3k · November 26, 2004

If they are cheats and they read the forums then I bet they are having a jolly good laugh right now :laughing:

November 26, 2004

I should not think they are laughing. More like embarrassed. as they are reasonably new to the hobby??? :laughing:

November 27, 2004

Perhaps we should all wait to log our finds until after the next finder has logged their find.

Then we could all PROOVE we weren't cheating.

Edited November 27, 2004 by That s all Folks

2.3k · November 27, 2004

Good point - how many placers check the phisical log agains the GC.com one?

November 27, 2004

Good point - how many placers check the phisical log agains the GC.com one?

i do on maintenance visit's

November 27, 2004

I think cheating is the pits. It does affect loads of people. What's the point of logging a cache if you didn't find it?

Cheats should be strung up and the co-ordinates posted as a virtual cache.

3.8k · November 27, 2004

Good point - how many placers check the phisical log agains the GC.com one?

i do on maintenance visit's

I also check mine, I had two people log one of my caches, I had thought they were cheating, as 2 days before they had found a cache in Belgium, then the day after they had found another cache abroad. They had said it took them 2 days in total to find my cache. I found this odd so I went and checked the log. Sure enough they had visited the cache and logged it. Very busy travellers indeed.

If I had found however that they had not logged in the logbook, I would have had no quams with deleting their finds.

I have also deleted someone's log that was posted twice, making it just the one find rather than two.

November 27, 2004

Yep there are some real tricky characters out there !!

I know one that having completed all the clues for another venture said he used them to get the jump on everyone for a FTF...so while the rest of us slogged our guts out walking some fourteen and a half miles ... he just turned up at the pub which was close the the final cache location...yes there is no end to the extremes some people will go to cut corners

And his last reply post is not a million miles from here!!

BTW he refused to take a dope test at the stewards enquiry...which tells you something I believe ???

:lol: :laughing:

Ullium.

Edited November 27, 2004 by Ullium

2.3k · November 27, 2004

Rotter!

November 28, 2004

Hi Jumbo Village - do you have any update on this one? Did you manage to get the issue resolved? <_<

3.8k · November 28, 2004

Yep there are some real tricky characters out there !!

I know one that having completed all the clues for another venture said he used them to get the jump on everyone for a FTF...so while the rest of us slogged our guts out walking some fourteen and a half miles ... he just turned up at the pub which was close the the final cache location...yes there is no end to the extremes some people will go to cut corners

And his last reply post is not a million miles from here!!

BTW he refused to take a dope test at the stewards enquiry...which tells you something I believe ???

Ullium.

TUT TUT TUT Ullium, to save myself from spending ages typing up a reply to the same accusation. I have cut and pasted my last reply on this matter. :D :D

Can I add my thanks to everyone else's Marmal

Angela and I had a great day...and everything we set out to accomplish we achieved....except for one small detail

So when the steward's enquiry over the validity of a certain cacher's FTF claim is set up...I wonder if you would consider including me on the commitee??

Also I have some innovative ideas on how the dope test should be conducted

Ullium.

The Steward's enquiry is apparently under way.

So far they have managed to find out that Ullium had sent the said cacher an email, at least 4 days before the event pointing out that the River Rubbings URL link was having problems. The said cacher, kindly informed Ullium, all about the cache. The following details where passed onto Ullium -

1. It will become live 2 days before the event.

2. That you have to get a brass plaques along the river, to find the final co-ordinates.

Ullium was said to be deeply appreciative for the information and was going to pick up a brass rubbing book from the visitor centre, 3 days before the event, which was 1 day before the cache went live.

Now on the day the cache went live 2 days before the event, the said cacher could have easily gone to get this cache as he had all the information already. That's right he already had the information as he had just finished getting all of the rubbings himself, that day. Alas he decided that this would be unsportsmanship like and waited until the day of the event.

It has also came to light that on the day of the event, Ullium called the said cacher on his mobile, (Angela must have put the number in for him!) to ask the where-abouts of one of the plaques. It must be said at this point he didn't need this plaque for the cache. The said cacher informed him that the plaque had been muggled, during a pre-geocaching life. Yet again Ullium was appreciative for this information. during the same phone call it was discussed about the meeting time at the public house and Ullium was informed that he was going to the final location to find the cache. Ullium kindly signed off by saying see you later The Said Cacher.

Ullium did however call the said cacher again in the day just to inform him that he thought it was The Perth Pathfinders he was calling. It is obvious that Angela must have been otherwise engaged and he attempted to use the telephone himself.

With this information the enquiry has decided in Ullium's absence that it was his own fault for not getting FTF, as he had ample opportunity (4 days to be exact) to gather the information and get to the final location.

The said cacher had left ample opportunity for someone else to get the FTF (2 days to be exact) and deserves the recognition and the nice little laminated FTF Certificate that was waiting for him to collect.

Enquiry Closed

November 28, 2004

St Peter:

"and your name is?"

HH:

"Haggis Hunter"

St Peter:

"and have you anything you would like to confess to that you regret in your life?"

HH:

"just one thing...I didn't kick Ullium off the cliff at the Haggis Hunt cache"

St Peter:

"what!!!...that paragon of honesty and virtue Ullium??...you would wish him ill?"

HH:

"No No...not ill...something more terminal than that!!"

St Peter:

"OK Haggis Hunter ... everyone is allowed one little irrationality....however you

must pay a penance!"

HH:

"thankyou St Peter...what penance must I pay?"

St Peter:

"you must till the end of time seek Ullium's caches...when he gets around to

placing them that is!!"

:mad: <_< :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

Ullium.

3.8k · November 29, 2004

At first I had thought this was a reply that had taken you 2 months to think off, and that I had fell into your trap, but Ullium I must admit it has brought a smile to my face.

:lol: :huh:

November 29, 2004

Goal achieved :lol:

Ullium.

November 30, 2004

Now then, back to the original point!

I've just received a mail from the person that claimed to have found my cache stating that they hadn't stopped as it looked too busy, but simply "Driven Past" it !! For some reason he assumed he could nonchalently claim it! How about that?!

I feel used!

Cheers

Richard

November 30, 2004

Now then, back to the original point!

I've just received a mail from the person that claimed to have found my cache stating that they hadn't stopped as it looked too busy, but simply "Driven Past" it !! For some reason he assumed he could nonchalently claim it! How about that?!

I feel used!

Cheers

Richard

That's not cheating...that's just stupidity <_<

Mark you if your caches are continually having muggle problems maybe you should take more care to place them in a location where they can be dealt with out of sight of any muggles who might be around at the time??

And what's this "I feel used" patter?? Your kidding right??

Ullium.

3.3k · November 30, 2004

Mark you if your caches are continually having muggle problems maybe you should take more care to place them in a location where they can be dealt with out of sight of any muggles who might be around at the time??

Noooo, keep it there, just make sure the difficulty is correct Just ask anyone who has tried to do "Devious Devonian" <_<

1.8k · November 30, 2004

Stuey wrote:
Just ask anyone who has tried to do "Devious Devonian

Yep. :lol: :lol:

2.2k · December 1, 2004

they didn't honestly say that did they????!!

that goes beyond stupid, that's in a world of it's own. do they actually understand the sport? when they go on holiday do they stay in the airport? afterall they've been to the country why bother going to the beech or hotel!

December 3, 2004

Whats up with these recent logs ?

December 3, 2004

Whats up with these recent logs ?

I noticed that too, as I have a watch on a couple of them.

Weird!

I did notice that the caching name has changed from "mobilepanda" to "babypanda" though. Not sure if that's significant.

Edited December 3, 2004 by Leoness

December 3, 2004

Personally I just can't see what anyone would gain from cheating??

I mean there is no monetary gain! Or even notoriety gain (because to get one's numbers up enough to gain notoriety would be certain to be spotted!)

So I just can't see the point of anyone going out of their way to cheat!!

Ullium.

2.5k · December 3, 2004

Those logs are just weird, and what exactly do they mean? They imply that they found it previously and on their visit yesterday the cache was missing. Not very likely for ALL the caches. Or do they mean they previously looked, didn't find the cache, but are logging it as a find anyway?

Some of the earlier logs from this persn are obviously genuine as they mention dropping off a TB in one cache, and the next log records picking it up. If they were my caches I would certainly contact them for clarification and check the logs and if neccessary delete the online log. If I was a finder of the caches, I may feel inclined to mail the cache owner if there was no trace of a physical log from these people.

Set a pack of wombles on them, that should put the fear of god into them! Visions of Orinoco biting a GCers ankle whist Uncle Bulgaria kicks then in the shins and Madame Cholet pulls their hair!

3.8k · December 3, 2004

Whats up with these recent logs ?

Very Very Strange

December 3, 2004

I think I can translate what Babypanda means. Theyfound the cache some time ago and thought they had logged it but the log is not showing on geocaching.com

1.8k · December 3, 2004

I think I can translate what Babypanda means. Theyfound the cache some time ago and thought they had logged it but the log is not showing on geocaching.com

That was my undetstanding too. If correct it would have been better if they had used the correct date, or as near as they could remember, to the actual find to make it easier to verify their find in the log book.

December 3, 2004

Just some general comments on the original question.

(1) I really don't care if cachers 'cheat' and post finds they don't have - since this is not a competition, they are just screwing themselves up in the long run if that is how they approach life.

(2) I have first-hand experience with caches that have gone missing, been checked by myself, been temporarily disabled, and then found during their down time. In one case the cache actually was there -- someone had moved it several meters and completely covered it with debris. The finder was just a very good cache hunter -- better than me! We even replaced an intermediate stage on a difficult multi for some geocachers last year, after about 10 persons could not find it and noted that it was in an area that had a forest fire. About two months ago, someone found the new container AND the original container we all thought was lost.

Bottom line -- strange things can and do happen, so take care before concluding that someone is not playing by the rules.

Hope this input helps and everyone has a happy holiday season.

1.7k · December 3, 2004

Hope this input helps and everyone has a happy holiday season.

Some good points made. And yes, we will have a very Happy Christmas. Thanks.

December 3, 2004

Bottom line -- strange things can and do happen, so take care before concluding that someone is not playing by the rules.

Hope this input helps and everyone has a happy holiday season.

This is exactly what I have been saying...it seems you managed to get the message across better than me hikemeister

And all the best seasonal greetings to you and yours

Ullium.

December 3, 2004

Believe it or not, I think I know what "Baby Panda" means (me being a bit handy on Bristol Geocaches)

It must be one of Mobile Panda's kids who have decided to go it alone and are logging caches that they have visited with their parents.

Put it down to a child's innocence gentlemen

How Do We Handle Cheating?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Join the conversation