Congratulation To Archiac Charmer

January 21, 2006

Congrats to ARCHIAC CHARMER for most caches found in one day from the armchair :wub:

wont be long before a lot of the records are broken by you.

Nige

1.7k · January 21, 2006

Can't something be done about this idiot?

I've had to delete one of his logs from one of my caches. In this particular cache, the last person who looked could not find it, presumed missing.

However, since it was found (by archaic charmer), I had presumed it was still there and didn't check on it. Obviously when I realised who had logged it, I realised it may actually be missing.

You may think this person is doing no harm, but if he is making caches look like they are there when they are missing, then something needs to be done.

I say a ban is in order.

Tigger

January 21, 2006

Can't something be done about this idiot?

Probably not if TPTB don't know about it, anyone contacted them?

1.7k · January 21, 2006

TPTB know about simpletons like this but they are not "Log Police". It is up to individual cache owners to either delete the logs of ignore them.

At the end of the day prats like this don't actually do any harm to anyone else. Let them play their silly games and ignore them is my advice.

1.7k · January 21, 2006

At the end of the day prats like this don't actually do any harm to anyone else. Let them play their silly games and ignore them is my advice.

While it's not the end of the world, he is making it look like caches are still there when they may not be.

T

January 21, 2006

After the couple i've deleted I note he is back on 98. Cue Groundhog day

1.9k · January 21, 2006

Anyone got a link to his profile as i can't seem to find one ?

Just wanna check if he's logged any of ours.

January 21, 2006

Anyone got a link to his profile as i can't seem to find one ?

Here

Armchair cacher

After the couple i've deleted I note he is back on 98. Cue Groundhog day

Still going down 96 now. I was going to let them carry on but they are just taking the p...

It's a lot easier to delete the log than it is to write it up although they never wrote much to begin with.

January 21, 2006

well he has been here

may the de logging begine

13 Apr 03 Beacon Book Box (Hants) by ESSCAFE (GCF7AB)

United Kingdom 2 days ago*

Traditional Cache (3.5/2)

Size: Other 25 Sep 05 Herne2's Little Thing.6 by herne2 and Cara the Geodog (GCQPCT)

United Kingdom 2 days ago*

Traditional Cache (2/3)

Size: Regular 8 Sep 03 Walk This Way by SenselessThing (GCGW3D)

United Kingdom 2 days ago*

Traditional Cache (1/1)

Size: Regular 27 Dec 03 Meon Valley Mud Bath by Omally (GCHCXF)

United Kingdom 2 days ago*

Traditional Cache (1.5/2)

Size: Regular 6 Jul 01 Fierce Creatures (New Location) (Hampshire) by Rincewind & Luggage (GC2BA0)

United Kingdom 2 days ago*

Traditional Cache Travel Bug Dog Tag (1 item(s)) (2/2)

Size: Regular 21 Sep 03 River Wallington Ramble by Great White Hunter (GCGY2M)

United Kingdom 2 days ago*

Traditional Cache (2.5/1)

Size: Other 29 Feb 04 3 Way Split by Wiz & Hat (GCHTBZ)

United Kingdom 2 days ago*

Traditional Cache Travel Bug Dog Tag (1 item(s)) (1/1.5)

Size: Regular 16 Mar 02 Navvies Rest by Geoff & Bonnie (GC427A)

United Kingdom 2 days ago*

Traditional Cache Travel Bug Dog Tag (1 item(s)) (3/3)

Size: Regular 16 Oct 04 Mission Impossible : Can you find it by Wilkinsons (GCKV9H)

United Kingdom 2 days ago*

Traditional Cache (1.5/1.5)

Size: Regular 16 Sep 01 Viaduct View (Hampshire) by Rob & Lisa (GC1D43)

United Kingdom 2 days ago*

Traditional Cache Travel Bug Dog Tag (1 item(s)) (1.5/1.5)

Size: Not chosen 30 Oct 05 Gnashie's Cachie by The Wanderers Return (GCR56M)

United Kingdom 2 days ago*

Traditional Cache (2/2)

Size: Regular 16 Mar 03 Virtually a Cache (Hants) by Paul & Michael Blitz (GCE5EE)

United Kingdom 2 days ago*

Traditional Cache (4/5)

Size: Micro 15 Feb 05 Not as it seems by dysdera (GCMTJX)

United Kingdom 2 days ago*

Traditional Cache Travel Bug Dog Tag (1 item(s)) (1/1)

Size: Regular 26 May 03 Akay Folly by sedbergh (GCG5ZQ)

United Kingdom 3 days ago*

Traditional Cache Travel Bug Dog Tag (1 item(s)) (2.5/3)

Size: Regular 3 Aug 03 2003 Space Odyssey by Molyball (GCGJVM)

United Kingdom 3 days ago*

Traditional Cache (1/4)

Size: Regular 30 Aug 05 Wild Boar Fell by Dill the Dog (GCQC71)

United Kingdom 3 days ago*

Traditional Cache Travel Bug Dog Tag (1 item(s)) (2/5)

Size: Regular 1 Jun 02 Whernside by Dave and Maerwen (GC5EF3)

United Kingdom 3 days ago*

Traditional Cache Travel Bug Dog Tag (1 item(s)) (3/4)

Size: Small 12 Jul 05 'Lilian's Lookout' by roboes (GCPNQG)

United Kingdom 3 days ago*

Traditional Cache (2.5/2.5)

Size: Small 31 Mar 05 Happy Sunny Valley by olliethecollie (GCN9T9)

United Kingdom 3 days ago*

Traditional Cache Travel Bug Dog Tag (2 item(s)) (2/2)

Size: Regular 13 Apr 03 Heading for a fall? by Terry and Penny (GCF92F)

United Kingdom

1k · January 21, 2006

At the end of the day prats like this don't actually do any harm to anyone else. Let them play their silly games and ignore them is my advice.

While it's not the end of the world, he is making it look like caches are still there when they may not be.

T

and by ranting on about it your giving in to exactly what they want to do wind people up

January 22, 2006

If you have a website then 'web bug' your cache descriptions with an image linked back to your website.

When this phantom logger places a log, you then refer the times you got the mail notice to what is in your websites access log for that 'web bug' image.

As he proceeds to do this with different caches, you can pretty much pin point his IP address details, which may or may not be useful, depending on how determined you are at wanting to know who t is.

You may find they have breeched their ISP's user agreement and have the account terminated. You may find interesting aspects of their life that they'd rather not have their peer group know about.

This is one method we used to identify trolls and general readership on a certain usenet in security newsgroup.

Edited January 22, 2006 by stonefisk

January 23, 2006

You think some phantom logs is bad? Wait til he starts placing some caches - all from the comfort of his armchair :unsure:

Andy

1.8k · January 23, 2006

You think some phantom logs is bad? Wait til he starts placing some caches - all from the comfort of his armchair

Andy

Don't give him ideas, please!!! :unsure:

January 23, 2006

You think some phantom logs is bad? Wait til he starts placing some caches - all from the comfort of his armchair

Andy

They'll only end up moving the phantom cache category over to Waymarking.com :unsure:

1.1k · January 23, 2006

You think some phantom logs is bad? Wait til he starts placing some caches - all from the comfort of his armchair

Andy

Don't give him ideas, please!!!

How many forum users would go to seek an archaic charmer cache? It'll have to set up another sock puppet for placing caches.

So avoid any caches by "A Rare Chic Charm" :unsure:

February 10, 2006

Poor old Archaic charmer...... he's just an amateur compared to Superman .....

JohnnyCache2006

February 10, 2006

TPTB know about simpletons like this but they are not "Log Police". It is up to individual cache owners to either delete the logs of ignore them.

At the end of the day prats like this don't actually do any harm to anyone else. Let them play their silly games and ignore them is my advice.

TRUE,

Edited February 10, 2006 by Silver-Fox

2.2k · February 11, 2006

but how bored must he/she be to keep doing it????

February 11, 2006

geocaching is a game an in the rules you have to achally find the cache before you log it. therefor hes cheating!!!!!!

besides there are plenty of other things to play in your armchair like chess or scrabble

LMN

February 11, 2006

I was caching in the Southampton area today and I noted that he had found all three of the ones I looked for, including one that seems to be impossible (!). No note in the logs of the two I did find, funny old thing

What does he get out of it? Other than having us talk about him I suppose - no doubt he is reading this thread

February 11, 2006

Remember VirtualCacher. He was around when i first started and got loads of FTF's. He soon gave up when his logs were deleted. Just ignore this bozo and hopefully he'll go the same way. Just pass the word in logbook pages when you log one after he has said he has logged it.

1.1k · February 11, 2006

Congratulations for what! :lol:

February 12, 2006

Congratulations for what!

Perhaps everyone should send him a congratulations every time he logs one. Perhaps a few dozen e-mails every time he logs will deter him a little. Payback!!!!!

1.8k · February 12, 2006

achilles1964 wrote:

Perhaps everyone should send him a congratulations every time he logs one. Perhaps a few dozen e-mails every time he logs will deter him a little. Payback!!!!!

Unfortunately his email address with gc.com bounces. Or at least it did a few weeks ago.

1.1k · February 12, 2006

This must be the third thread devoted to this muppet - if we ignore him he'll go away, the more we twitter on about how bad,sad or mad he is the more he will persist.

Could the OP perhaps close this thread, then we can finally let this gobbin slide off the page... :anicute:

February 13, 2006

This must be the third thread devoted to this muppet - if we ignore him he'll go away, the more we twitter on about how bad,sad or mad he is the more he will persist.

Could the OP perhaps close this thread, then we can finally let this gobbin slide off the page...

I dont think it should be closed. There's new members looking at this forum everyday and should be made aware of the way some people log caches. after all this IS what this forum is supposed to be for and it is a geocaching related post. you do have a choice on these forum topics ,read or ignore. unless I'm asked by the moderators to lock it , then it stays a while longer.

Nige

1.3k · February 13, 2006

I guess it is a shame that caches cannot be run with similiar setups to Travel Bugs, that is the cache contains a validation number that you must use to log them. Only people visiting the cache and noting down the validation number could then log them as finds.

J

February 13, 2006

I guess it is a shame that caches cannot be run with similiar setups to Travel Bugs, that is the cache contains a validation number that you must use to log them. Only people visiting the cache and noting down the validation number could then log them as finds.

Shhhh! Don't give TBTB any new revenue generating ideas! "In order to place a cache you must first purchase a cache logging number......"

February 13, 2006

I guess it is a shame that caches cannot be run with similiar setups to Travel Bugs, that is the cache contains a validation number that you must use to log them. Only people visiting the cache and noting down the validation number could then log them as finds.

J

Now that's a very good idea, like it

Nige

3.7k · February 13, 2006

Now that's a very good idea, like it

I've suggested that before, but I think the response is that we don't need it, as it's up to individuals whether they want to stick to logging genuine finds or not. I still think that it should be an optional feature for cache owners who prefer only real finds being logged.

HH

1.8k · February 13, 2006

Now that's a very good idea, like it

I've suggested that before, but I think the response is that we don't need it, as it's up to individuals whether they want to stick to logging genuine finds or not. I still think that it should be an optional feature for cache owners who prefer only real finds being logged.

HH

I like this idea too if it was an automatic process when people logged their finds - i.e. the onus was on the finder as if it depended on the cache owner approving the find, as with virtuals, I fear too many might not bother.

3.9k · February 13, 2006

How about if the owners - here present - of the affected caches, sent a mail to the owners - not here present - of the other affected caches, something like this:

---------- cut here ----------

Hi,

You may have noticed that one or more of your caches was recently logged as 'found' by someone using the nickname 'Armchair Cacher'.

It has come the attention of the UK geocaching community that this person does not actually visit the caches in question; he or she is simply sitting at home typing 'found' logs.

This, of course, helps nobody: 'Armchair Cacher' is simply running up 'points' for reasons best known to him- or herself, and meanwhile, cache 'found' counts are being distorted, potentially missing caches are being marked as found, etc.

I, and a number of like-minded cachers, have decided to systematically delete any logs which 'Armchair Cacher' makes on our caches. Might we suggest that you do the same? The general feeling seems to be that, after a while, this individual will get fed up with having to make more and more logs just to stay on the same fictitious total of fins, and will eventually give up. In any case, deleting a log takes a lot time than writing one.

You can find out more about this story at <insert forum link here>.

Thanks for your time in reading this!

Geocacher

---------- cut here ----------

3.7k · February 13, 2006

Nice one, sTeam Traen.

John Stead: I like this idea too if it was an automatic process when people logged their finds

If it was ever implemented, I'd see it as simply a password-protected cache: you can't select "Found it" on the "Post a new log" page without also entering a password. The cache owner has the password written inside the box lid, and on the front of the log book, and you note it down at the site. It would only have to be three or four characters.

Obviously, the cache owner would be able to turn this on and off as required, and could change the password if it becomes apparent that people are passing it around. Otherwise, similar to a travel bug which you also can't log without the tracking number/password.

HH

February 13, 2006

For 'Tahoe Logger' read "Hate Googler"

1.8k · February 13, 2006

I see that Archaic Charmer aka Tahoe Logger has only one find now. I wonder if that one is actually genuine?

It looks as if AC/TL has deleted the other finds him or herself, as the count was down to 28 yesterday and it's just one now. I doubt that all those logs have been deleted in that time by individual cache owners.

1.8k · February 13, 2006

Nice one, sTeam Traen.

John Stead: I like this idea too if it was an automatic process when people logged their finds

If it was ever implemented, I'd see it as simply a password-protected cache: you can't select "Found it" on the "Post a new log" page without also entering a password. The cache owner has the password written inside the box lid, and on the front of the log book, and you note it down at the site. It would only have to be three or four characters.

Obviously, the cache owner would be able to turn this on and off as required, and could change the password if it becomes apparent that people are passing it around. Otherwise, similar to a travel bug which you also can't log without the tracking number/password.

HH

That is exactly how I would like to see it - many thanks. Are TPTB aware of this idea?

1.7k · February 14, 2006

That is exactly how I would like to see it - many thanks. Are TPTB aware of this idea?

I don't know. Why not suggest it in the main Geocaching.com forum?

And as for AC/TL's logs - interesting how all his "false" logs have disappeared at once. I guess two can play at his silly game!

February 14, 2006

That is exactly how I would like to see it - many thanks. Are TPTB aware of this idea?

I don't know. Why not suggest it in the main Geocaching.com forum?

And as for AC/TL's logs - interesting how all his "false" logs have disappeared at once. I guess two can play at his silly game!

I wrote to geocaching .com and told them of this cacher, I also mentioned that he was not a problem to everyone, but it was in my opinion not the way to play the game. and getting FTF'S before genuine cachers

I have also asked about cache log pass codes for caches, and if others do think this is a good idea , then a few more mails to them may be fruitful.

Nige

February 14, 2006

Maybe people are missing something, what a pass code would do is authenticate a visit. A means for doing this already exists, its called the log book. I doubt TPTB would suggest yet another method that is just going to inconvenience genuine cachers more by having to note down a load of codes.

February 14, 2006

And as for AC/TL's logs - interesting how all his "false" logs have disappeared at once. I guess two can play at his silly game!

One log remaining I think. New name of AC is Tahoe Logger- (another use for the geocacheuk website)

February 14, 2006

Maybe people are missing something, what a pass code would do is authenticate a visit. A means for doing this already exists, its called the log book. I doubt TPTB would suggest yet another method that is just going to inconvenience genuine cachers more by having to note down a load of codes.

What inconvenience? this would be no different as if your doing a multi and taking and making a note of clues from each cache in the series, and just the same as a travel bug.it takes but a couple of seconds to make note of a number

Nige

2.5k · February 14, 2006

Maybe people are missing something, what a pass code would do is authenticate a visit. A means for doing this already exists, its called the log book. I doubt TPTB would suggest yet another method that is just going to inconvenience genuine cachers more by having to note down a load of codes.

What inconvenience? this would be no different as if your doing a multi and taking and making a note of clues from each cache in the series, and just the same as a travel bug.it takes but a couple of seconds to make note of a number

Nige

This would mean cache owners would have to visit all there historic caches so that the code would be available, (Would not fancy being Simply Paul). Also on new caches, you would be forced to return to a cache once you have setup the page so that you can leave the code!

February 14, 2006

His one log for a virtual looks like it might be valid since the owner of the cache logged in recently they would have deleted it they hadn't had an email from him. It is also in Scotland like his profile says his location is. Maybe this guy has actually decided to go and find some so perhaps this thread should be closed if he's not just making up finds as he was before.

2.3k · February 14, 2006

an anagram of google hater

February 14, 2006

Just to add in response to The Northumbrian's reply, what I am saying is that I doubt TPTB will introduce, or other cachers would welcome something that is just going to be a nuisance to them in an attempt to increase the integrity of users stats. If people want to make up finds, then that’s up to them, I don't think it the caching community as a whole is so fussed. Admittedly the FTF thing is a pain, but people will soon get bored of doing that.

1.3k · February 14, 2006

I'm not sure about people getting bored of virtual visits...

Folks have always said the same of illegal transmissions purposely interrupting and transmitting on the Amateur radio bands, "ignore them and they will go away"... Doesn't happen, I stopped using some repeater stations many years ago because of these idiots that spoil it, on returning to one just before christmas, the same idiots were still there doing it - and in this case it is actually an illegal act.

For Geocaching, if we are happy to put up with it for the forseeable future then fine, we ignore it, delete logs etc.... If we don't want it, then something must be done to prevent the problem occuring. The problem will not go away by itself.

J

2.9k · February 14, 2006

Terracaching has this code word sytem, as stated before Jeremy's official response is the evidence is in the log book.

You could of course put a code word in the cache and state its required to confirm a find.

We have done one cache which asked you to use a certain phrase in your log to denote a find. Looking back it appears that the phrase changes every maintainance visit.

1.8k · February 14, 2006

Maybe people are missing something, what a pass code would do is authenticate a visit. A means for doing this already exists, its called the log book. I doubt TPTB would suggest yet another method that is just going to inconvenience genuine cachers more by having to note down a load of codes.

What inconvenience? this would be no different as if your doing a multi and taking and making a note of clues from each cache in the series, and just the same as a travel bug.it takes but a couple of seconds to make note of a number

Nige

This would mean cache owners would have to visit all there historic caches so that the code would be available, (Would not fancy being Simply Paul). Also on new caches, you would be forced to return to a cache once you have setup the page so that you can leave the code!

Moote of course has a valid point - but if the cache owner sets the code word he would not have to revisit a new cache and it should be possible to set it up so that old caches do not need codes until they are added by the owner, perhaps with a wildcard.

It would seem easier than checking all logged visits against log books.

In truth though, are we really all that bothered if bogus cachers are around?

February 14, 2006

For what it is worth my opinion is that although having a code would solve the problem it is a hassle and I bet that I will forget to write it down at least once. For just this reason I was moaning the other month about having to remember the number on a TB. If it cam to a vote then I would probably abstain.

Congratulation To Archiac Charmer

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

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment