Falsely Logging Virtual Caches

June 4, 2005

How does everyone feel about finding the "answer" to a virtual cache on the web and then emailing the owner the answer to get credit for the find, when they never actually visited the cache? Is there no integrity with these folks? I don't own any virtual caches, but I wouldn't appreciate it too much! Makes you wonder when you see those big numbers out beside a cachers user name how many of those are for real!

Edited June 4, 2005 by Merrycacher

9.2k · June 4, 2005

That's kind of the owner's fault, for having a lame confirmation question.

1.6k · June 4, 2005

Well, technically, according to the site's guidelines, the answer shouldn't be able to be found on the internet. In fact, I think that's one of the newer rules that the site has about virtuals. I think there are alot of old ones that are grandfathered in though...

5.9k · June 4, 2005

Do people actually log virts as "found"?

There's no log book and no container! Post a note.

2.1k · June 4, 2005

Makes you wonder when you see those big numbers out beside a cachers user name how many of those are for real!

I would seriously doubt that anyone could amass a large number of virtual finds from searching the web. I would doubt, even more so, that there are a significant number of people who do this.

As a slight variation on this theme I would allow a find on one of my virtuals if the cacher had, at any time in the past, actually visited the site, even if that visit predated my cache. They could extract answers from the web or other source if they wanted to but I would accept any evidence that convinced me they were actually there.

Some virtual owners get hung-up on the correct answers but I agree with you that it should be the visit that counts for a find.

3.8k · June 4, 2005

...Makes you wonder when you see those big numbers out beside a cachers user name how many of those are for real!

Excuse me, I think you've mistaken me for someone who gives a dam.

Do people actually log virts as "found"?

Yes, and I'm proud of it. (Actually, I have logged a few really cool ones!)

2.1k · June 4, 2005

There's no log book and no container! Post a note.

In a parallel universe your concept might just catch on. This one, however, accepts virtual finds.

Edited June 4, 2005 by Team Sagefox

June 4, 2005

There are a few cachers around my area that have logged quite a few virtual finds on the same day, countries apart. I just assumed you were to claim a virtual cache by actually visiting it. Shows what I know. Guess I won't look at anybody's "numbers" any more. At least I know mine are on the up and up, even though they are few.

1.4k · June 4, 2005

How does everyone feel about finding the "answer" to a virtual cache on the web and then emailing the owner the answer to get credit for the find, when they never actually visited the cache? Is there no integrity with these folks? I don't own any virtual caches, but I wouldn't appreciate it too much! Makes you wonder when you see those big numbers out beside a cachers user name how many of those are for real!

I actually do visit the virtual caches I log my visits to. I'm rather indifferent for those who are too lazy to do the same, since I am powerless to enforce the "correct" way of doing things on them. Kind of unfair to blame the owner of the listing since it was not his original intent to allow people to cheat.

It's really up to each person to self-enforce good conduct these days. In the big picture, lack of self-regulation leads to abuses, then backlash, then legislation, then bureaucracy... or do we not care about our own freedom anymore?

Edited June 4, 2005 by budd-rdc

7.3k · June 4, 2005

"how does everyone feel".... I feel that the only logs I need police are my own and the only caches I need police are my own

5.7k · June 4, 2005

Do people actually log virts as "found"?
There's no log book and no container! Post a note.

Kinda makes you wonder why the site designers add virtual 'finds' to the total found count, doesn't it? I wonder why that is?

5.9k · June 4, 2005

Do people actually log virts as "found"?
There's no log book and no container! Post a note.

Kinda makes you wonder why the site designers add virtual 'finds' to the total found count, doesn't it? I wonder why that is?

Yes they do, as well as "finding" an event. I have the right to think it's lame, while still understanding that others don't.

5.7k · June 4, 2005

Do people actually log virts as "found"?
There's no log book and no container! Post a note.

Kinda makes you wonder why the site designers add virtual 'finds' to the total found count, doesn't it? I wonder why that is?

Yes they do, as well as "finding" an event. I have the right to think it's lame, while still understanding that others don't.

Ditto that..........in a mirror.

9.4k · June 5, 2005

How does everyone feel about finding the "answer" to a virtual cache on the web and then emailing the owner the answer to get credit for the find, when they never actually visited the cache?

I think it is stupid, but I'm not losing sleep over it.

Yes, Criminal, you can actually find a virtual cache because the object you're looking for is an actual physical object.

June 5, 2005

I found some virts recently that didn't require any information be emailed! One could easily just log them as found if one was unscrupulous. However, most of what goes on with geocaching is based on the assumption that people are telling the truth about where they have been. Even a conventional cache could be logged as a find without actually going there if all someone cares about is the numbers. The only way to tell would be for the cache owner to diligently check the logs with the cache log book.

1.2k · June 5, 2005

Do people actually log virts as "found"?
There's no log book and no container! Post a note.

Kinda makes you wonder why the site designers add virtual 'finds' to the total found count, doesn't it? I wonder why that is?

Yes they do, as well as "finding" an event. I have the right to think it's lame, while still understanding that others don't.

Newer events are not FOUND they are Attended. so there

2.7k · June 5, 2005

As a virtual owner I have no qualms when it comes to deleting your find. If you can't prove it then it's a no find, or looked at or whatever you want to call it.

1.5k · June 5, 2005

How does everyone feel about finding the "answer" to a virtual cache on the web and then emailing the owner the answer to get credit for the find, when they never actually visited the cache?

Who cares? It's a GAME. There is NO PRIZE. Nobody wins or loses. It doesn't matter, so find something actually significant to worry about. And for the record, yes, I've logged a couple virts by finding the info on the net. That was the only "caching" I could do when I was at home sick in bed. It was harder to find the info on the net in most cases than to actually go to the site to get it. SO WHAT? I had fun, and that's the point. If my "finds" were deleted, SO WHAT? It ain't about numbers, it's about having fun. If that's my way of having fun, good for me. If you think I lack "integrity" or am a Bad Person for using the resources at my disposal to come up with the necessary information, that's ok too, as long as you're having fun as well. Enjoy the game, however you choose to play it.

PS - Any virtual in Pennsylvania that's based on a roadside historical marker can be "found" on the Internet. There's a web site listing all the text of all the markers. Go find a few (however you do it) and have a blast.

2.2k · June 5, 2005

ya know! i spent my first honeymoon in gettysburg. yep, a honeymoon at a battlefield. it fits considering the divorce. i would in no way shape or form claim anything i saw there just for a smilie.

i also spent a week in washington d.c. in 1994, just viewing the sights. i have pics i could scan of virtuals to claim them but i won't. if/or when i go back there with my gps'r, i will claim them. they are only cheating themselves and i won't lose any sleep over it.

5.9k · June 5, 2005

Doesn't "attended" add one to your find counter?

3.9k · June 5, 2005

Doesn't "attended" add one to your find counter?

Yes.

El Diablo

5.9k · June 5, 2005

Doesn't "attended" add one to your find counter?

Yes.

El Diablo

Then what did you "find"? A geocache is a box with a logbook.

2.4k · June 5, 2005

Yes they do, as well as "finding" an event. I have the right to think it's lame, while still understanding that others don't.

Heh...you haven't attended some of the events I have. One, between roads not actually following where the maps said they did, roads closed for a race of some sort, and just general stupidity in the layout of the area, you really had to find the event. It wasn't quite like driving to the local pizza joint and talking caching.......

2k · June 5, 2005

How about this one? It's a virtual, but you can't really find it:

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...88-f4291a31d94a

June 5, 2005

I actually like virtuals, if they're in an interesting location. That said, I have a tendancy not to get around to logging a lot of the virtuals I've visited, so I can't even imagine why anyone would bother with looking them up on the web to log. Some of them are nice to visit on vacations though, because they might point out something interesting that's out of the way.

3.8k · June 5, 2005

Doesn't "attended" add one to your find counter?

Yes.

El Diablo

Then what did you "find"? A geocache is a box with a logbook.

I've only attended a few events (my count shows higher, because, yes I have logged some temp caches with the blessing of the owner). I apologize if anyone is offended or cheated.

I have held one event of my own (BTW, I logged that as a find, too).

But if it's any consolation, at my event, I had an official logbook, in an ammo box for all the attendees to sign (which most of them did).

Call me a cheater. Call me a slacker. Oh wait, I've never looked for virtual cache information on the internet. Don't call me a cheater. But I guess you can call me a slacker for logging my own event. Or wait a minute, that's cheating.

Oh BTW, call me if you want to go caching; I like the real caches too, or whatever you like.

5.9k · June 5, 2005

I don't have any disrespect for people who like to hunt them or have them show up as "finds" on their list. I just don't want them on mine. When I reach a milestone (#300 maybe in a year or two) I want to know that I found 300 real caches.

No drama.

3.8k · June 5, 2005

Shucks, I was really hoping for some drama;

the forums have been so boring lately.

1.5k · June 5, 2005

Doesn't "attended" add one to your find counter?

Yes.

El Diablo

Then what did you "find"? A geocache is a box with a logbook.

Acually, at each of the 2 events I've been to, there was a log sheet or book to sign. There were also huge collections of travel bugs, and at one there were a number of event caches hidden to be found that were temporary for that day only. At the other, there was a real large cache container with stuff to trade as well. So yes, there is a log to sign and usually caches to find, even if they don't "count" as a find on here. I see nothing wrong with having an event count as a find, but I wouldn't care if it didn't. What I do find a bit ridiculous are the people who log events as found multiple times, for each event cache they locate. I don't know whether multiple find logs per event raises your count or not though. If it does, it's just a lame way to boost numbers. But considering the numbers don't mean anything anyway, doesn't matter.

9.8k · June 5, 2005

I had a fellow cacher say to me the other day, when I questioned some of their virual finds in multiple states on the same day, that unless the cache page specifically states no electronic finds, then virtuals are fair game to log any time. I called BS on that one. I highly doubt virtual caches were set up not to be physically visited before being logged.

38.2k · June 5, 2005

I had a fellow cacher say to me the other day, when I questioned some of their virual finds in multiple states on the same day, that unless the cache page specifically states no electronic finds, then virtuals are fair game to log any time. I called BS on that one. I highly doubt virtual caches were set up not to be physically visited before being logged.

I agree. The point of this sport is to go out and find things. Not sit at your PC and surf the web just to pad your find count.

that unless the cache page specifically states no electronic finds, then virtuals are fair game to log any time. I called BS on that one.

I don't have a sign on my house saying "No burglers", but it doesn't mean its OK to rob my house.

Who cares? It's a GAME. There is NO PRIZE. Nobody wins or loses. It doesn't matter, so find something actually significant to worry about

If your fake find causes me to waste my valuable time searching for something that isn't there it becomes my issue. When you say you found something, you are in essence telling other geocachers that the object was still there. If it is instead missing (and virtuals do go missing) and and you lied about finding it, people will sometimes head out to search for it based on that. Wasting the time of others is not harmless fun.

It will also mislead the cache owner into thinking his cache is fine, when it may need attention.

Edited June 5, 2005 by briansnat

5.7k · June 5, 2005

I don't have any disrespect for people who like to hunt them or have them show up as "finds" on their list. I just don't want them on mine. When I reach a milestone (#300 maybe in a year or two) I want to know that I found 300 real caches.

No drama.

Are there measures that you can take to help ensure that they don't show in your found count?

June 5, 2005

Sure. If you want to hunt virtuals but not "find" them, post a note instead of a find. Then they won't show up in your find count. Personally, I think that a virtual is just a different type of cache, and, especially considering the strict rules in regards to placing them, just as good as any other. There are some places where physical caches simply cannot reasonably be placed (Washington DC anyone?), and therefore the virtual becomes a useful cache type.

2k · June 5, 2005

Which is why there will be a new "game" for virtuals and/or locationless coming soon that Jeremy keeps hinting about but not givng any meat on.

2.6k · June 5, 2005

It also depends on the virt, some have a location that you have to get information.

Others you have to find a like item.

I did 3 in the Palm Springs area last year, 2 of them pertained to the area

the 3rd one needed a picture of a statue of Liberty with your gps, that one started out in New York

2.1k · June 5, 2005

...When I reach a milestone (#300 maybe in a year or two) I want to know that I found 300 real caches.

You probably mean "physical" caches.

Any cache listed on gc.com is a "real" gc.com cache.

2.1k · June 5, 2005

I had a fellow cacher say to me the other day, when I questioned some of their virual finds in multiple states on the same day, that unless the cache page specifically states no electronic finds, then virtuals are fair game to log any time.

If I found out someone did this with my virtuals I would excercise my Executive Power of Deletion.

But, as quoted here and often, the virtual cache answers should not be able to be found on the web.

June 5, 2005

I guess if it is easy enough to search on the web, its a find. However if you set up a virtual it should be something you most physically see for your self. Something out of the ordinary.

1.4k · June 5, 2005

How does everyone feel about finding the "answer" to a virtual cache on the web and then emailing the owner the answer to get credit for the find, when they never actually visited the cache?

Who cares? It's a GAME. There is NO PRIZE. Nobody wins or loses. It doesn't matter, so find something actually significant to worry about. And for the record, yes, I've logged a couple virts by finding the info on the net. That was the only "caching" I could do when I was at home sick in bed. It was harder to find the info on the net in most cases than to actually go to the site to get it. SO WHAT? I had fun, and that's the point. If my "finds" were deleted, SO WHAT? It ain't about numbers, it's about having fun. If that's my way of having fun, good for me. If you think I lack "integrity" or am a Bad Person for using the resources at my disposal to come up with the necessary information, that's ok too, as long as you're having fun as well. Enjoy the game, however you choose to play it.

PS - Any virtual in Pennsylvania that's based on a roadside historical marker can be "found" on the Internet. There's a web site listing all the text of all the markers. Go find a few (however you do it) and have a blast.

Of course, who says what's on the Internet is 100% accurate? If you were able to answer the virtual cache questions confidently and accurately, then more power to your research skills.

I've had a virtual where the location actually changed slightly, but since I was physically there and took a photo of its current state, I was able to help the owner update the correct answer to the questions.

June 5, 2005

I've only been to one virtual cache and it took some finding!

Many have logged it as 'did not find'!

I thought part of the idea of this game was to get people out to places they would otherwise not visit.

I think if you take the trouble of hunting out a cache it should be given credit for, log book or no log book.

Perhaps owners could state that unless a photo of the cacher at the site is emailed to them to prove the visit, their log would be deleted.

Most of us have digital cameras, camera phones or scanners these days.

2.1k · June 5, 2005

I think if you take the trouble of hunting out a cache it should be given credit for, log book or no log book.

Edit: Three paragraphs deleted due to having misunderstood the question.

For virtuals I am closer to agreeing with you. For mine they only need to prove that they actually visited the site. Any proof of a real site visit works for me.

Edited June 5, 2005 by Team Sagefox

9.4k · June 5, 2005

I don't have any disrespect for people who like to hunt them or have them show up as "finds" on their list. I just don't want them on mine. When I reach a milestone (#300 maybe in a year or two) I want to know that I found 300 real caches.

No drama.

That's why they're broken out on your profile page by type. Make your own rules.

1.1k · June 5, 2005

Just when I felt that the forums were getting a little dull.

Myself, I like finding Virtuals especially when I,m on the road. From home, I like regular caches.

I would rather find a good vittual any day rather then a lame Micro!

One of my virtual doesn't have any internet info. that I have been able to find. The info. you need is on a non-historial, unimportant sign, but does prove you were there.

June 5, 2005

I think if you take the trouble of hunting out a cache it should be given credit for, log book or no log book.

It has been discussed often that, especially for container caches, that you must find the container and sign the logbook.

When i said 'no log book' I was referring to virtual caches!

Sorry if i didnt explain that bit clearly!

June 12, 2005

I feel caching is there for enjoyment. Each cacher needs to decide what he/she/they wish to get out of it. There are virtuals that require a picture to allow a log. These you would need to actually go to visit. We have learned many things from the researched required to log some of our virtual finds. This at times has taken many more hours of effort then finding a film canister strapped to a tree in a parking lot. Not to mention that we actually learn something about a new area or someone etc...

Some folks feel if you do not have to hike five miles or climb a cliff you are not caching. Not everyone has the physical ability or time to do these kinds of caches. Does this make them less of a cacher?

When you hide a cache you have the ability to make it as easy or as difficult as you desire and to ensure if someone actually goes to a location. If all caches were the same I do not think most of us would still be caching. The indivduality of each cacher is what makes this such a wonderful sport. It is great for all ages and abilities, I would hate to see it become unavailable for anyone.

The fact that some are in it just for the numbers will always be a part of it. I wish everyone's main focus was the ENJOYMENT. If you enjoy the 5/5 or the 1/1 to increase your numbers it does not matter. This is a recreation. Have fun!

Cache On

Mamma Pirate

June 14, 2005

I agree somewhat Mama Pirate. However, these cachers are purposely trying to mislead by posting things like:

"Beautiful area!"

"Interesting place for a virtual."

"Swat! Swat! Swat! Skeeters everywhere!"

"Such a wonderful old bridge ... Thanks for bringing me to the area"

"Cool area! It is good to see that these structures are still here."

"Just when you think you have seen a beautiful area, then you see this place! WOW! Neat sign. I felt as though I was visiting M*A*S*H. TFTH!"

"To see the creation of such beauty with nature is fantastic!"

"Cool water fountains and park! TFTH!"

These cachers were never at these locations... I guess it's all about the numbers. Not for me... I'll do it the correct way!!

NCMountie

Edited June 14, 2005 by NCMountie

June 14, 2005

Also, as another poster pointed out, not all virtual caches have to be visited.

Four Windows Virtual

In this example you only have to solve a riddle. It was never intended for the cacher to visit the location. The ones in question were intended to be visited by the cacher and they are finding ways to circumvent the system.

Is it right or wrong?

Edited June 14, 2005 by NCMountie

June 14, 2005

I would say, like most of the rest of the sport, that it's a matter of integrity. The fact that there is some evidence required to log a virtual cache find is more restrictive already than most of the traditional caches out there. If I am disthonest, and I really want to bump my numbers, all I have to do is start logging finds for traditional caches I have never been to. On the rare occasion, a cache owner may actually compare the paper log with the online finds and through my find out, but for the most part I will post huge numbers and no one can stop me.

That being said, if there's someone out there that is so insufficient as a human being that they have to cheat in a sport that has no winner in order to feel good about themselves, who cares?

I will enjoy every cache find just as much whether people are fake or not.

--Chino

June 14, 2005

How does everyone feel about finding the "answer" to a virtual cache on the web and then emailing the owner the answer to get credit for the find, when they never actually visited the cache? Is there no integrity with these folks? I don't own any virtual caches, but I wouldn't appreciate it too much! Makes you wonder when you see those big numbers out beside a cachers user name how many of those are for real!

if you look at their stats, the finds are broken down by cache type. I suppose if they have an extremely high number of virtuals, they might be faking it. But why bother??

1.8k · June 14, 2005

To me, virts are like micros: when they are good, they are often very, very good, but when they are bad, they are horrid!

Virts are to be gone to, to be physically experienced. I went to one virt where it literally took my breath away - I was standing at the grave of a local man who died at Gettysburg on Little Round Top. I'd known about him forever, he's well known. I had stood where he fell in PA. I had thought he was buried with the important folk in my area, a swanky cemetery. When this virt brought me to the coords listed and I came around the front of the gravestones so I could read them, I was just astonished. It made him more real to me than any book I'd read or even Little Round Top had.

So...do you think you could capture that over the net? I doubt. But to catch people doing that? Hmmmmm..........

Falsely Logging Virtual Caches

Recommended Posts

Join the conversation