Cheat Caching

[+moolcool]

Cant anybody cheat at this? just post that they found the cache and never leave home? Mabey there should be a verification code on caches

[+CYBret]

It happens. The only person they cheat is themselves.

 

Verification codes would get passed around the community sooner or later. If someone wants to cheat at anything they'll do it.

 

Welcome to humanity.

 

Bret

[+sbell111]

Mabey there should be a verification code on caches

 

There is. Its called a log book.

 

Edit: 'Mabey'. Hmmmm, that spelling looks familiar to me.

Edited March 24, 2006 by sbell111

[+JMBella]

Cant anybody cheat at this? just post that they found the cache and never leave home? Mabey there should be a verification code on caches

 

Sure, anyone can cheat.. but who are they cheating? The only real issue with "cheating" is that if a cache is actually missing or needs maintenance, the cache owner or future finders will think everything is fine because someone logged a [bogus] find.

 

Since geocaching generally isn't a competition, is not really cheating, it's just silly.

[+clearpath]

Cheating at geocaching is really a non-issue. This sport is really about finding adventure. Discovering hidden treasure (or objects). The number count of how many caches you've are only a reflection of how much time you have to enjoy the sport.

 

edit - oh yeah, before Briansnat jumps me on this ... cheating can cause legitimate geocacher to chase a cache that isn't hidden any longer. But hey, you still got to go on a hike and see the beautiful outdoors.

Edited March 24, 2006 by clearpath

[+JMBella]

BTW, if you're thinking about logging bogus finds feel free. Just make sure you write: I'm logging this as a find to inflate my ego. I didn't actually find this cache and I have no idea if it's really there. TNLNDNSL.

[+Isonzo Karst]

Anybody can. But hardly anybody does. If there were money involved I expect that would change. But there isn't. Mostly folks who think it's cool to "airchair" cache will be out of the game so soon it hardly matters.

[+HaLiJuSaPa]

Also, some cache owners will delete your log entry if you didn't sign the log book. Signing the log book is kind of the proof you were physically at the cache.

[+budd-rdc]

I think "Geocheating" sounds better than Cheat Caching, personally.

 

There have been allegations, but for the most part, people don't cheat. If you are a purist and consider the only way to find a cache is by coordinates only, then I'm guilty as charged, as I've found a few caches accidentally, figured out where they are without the coordinates by studying hints and past logs, and "guessed the hide style" and found EVIL hides quicker than the owners had desired.

[+BlueDeuce]

If you are a purist and consider the only way to find a cache is by coordinates only,

 

Purists don't think that. Misguided ones might, but it is not part of the Purists’ constitution.

 

 

Anyway, OP you sound like you have a problem with cheaters, as well you should.

 

Tough to do anything about though.

[+scavok]

Am I wrong, but I was informed by a moderator that pass-phrase caches were not allowed. A traditional cache must have a log book. No?

[+timk54]

If you are a purist and consider the only way to find a cache is by coordinates only,

 

Purists don't think that. Misguided ones might, but it is not part of the Purists’ constitution.

 

 

Anyway, OP you sound like you have a problem with cheaters, as well you should.

 

Tough to do anything about though.

 

Seems like a non-issue to me. It's the same as cheating at solitare. I havent found that many caches yet but I can already see that the coordinates may get me close but experience and common sense does the rest.

[+LeoGeo]

It happens. The only person they cheat is themselves.

 

In my family, when we're playing Multiple Solitaire, and we get "stuck," sometimes we continue the game by taking a card off the top of each person's stack and putting it on the bottom. But we never call it "cheating." It's "renegotiating our options" or "establishing a new paradigm."

[Mushtang]

Am I wrong, but I was informed by a moderator that pass-phrase caches were not allowed. A traditional cache must have a log book. No?

 

A code only cache isn't allowed. If you have a code and a log book you're okay. As the owner of the cache you can make it a requirement for the finders to tell you the code if you want (or pretty much whatever else you think of as a requrement).

 

If the requirements are too crazy, people might try and log a find without meeting the requirements. And you as the owner can decide to delete their find or not. My brother has a cache that you have to log with a poem or he'll delete your find, and he's done it.

[+sbell111]

In my family, when we're playing Multiple Solitaire, and we get "stuck," sometimes we continue the game by taking a card off the top of each person's stack and putting it on the bottom. But we never call it "cheating." It's "renegotiating our options" or "establishing a new paradigm."

I've done that, but it's not as fun as actually winning without 'establishing a new paradigm'. I imagine that if I was in the habit of fudging at geocaching, that it would become boring and I would lose all interest, just like solitaire.

[+budd-rdc]

It happens. The only person they cheat is themselves.

 

In my family, when we're playing Multiple Solitaire, and we get "stuck," sometimes we continue the game by taking a card off the top of each person's stack and putting it on the bottom. But we never call it "cheating." It's "renegotiating our options" or "establishing a new paradigm."

There are people in my area of our state that get VERY offended by your joke.

[+headybrew]

Am I wrong, but I was informed by a moderator that pass-phrase caches were not allowed. A traditional cache must have a log book. No?

 

A code only cache isn't allowed. If you have a code and a log book you're okay. As the owner of the cache you can make it a requirement for the finders to tell you the code if you want (or pretty much whatever else you think of as a requrement).

 

If the requirements are too crazy, people might try and log a find without meeting the requirements. And you as the owner can decide to delete their find or not. My brother has a cache that you have to log with a poem or he'll delete your find, and he's done it.

 

Seems to me, confirmation codes and first finder codes should be a built in feature of the web site. If a hider doesn't want to use them they don't have to. That 's the way it is on terracaching.com, and it's really cool. But then again, that site is more competition oriented. Here, cheating is just silly. All you get is another smiley.

Edited March 24, 2006 by headybrew

[+moolcool]

*quote*

There are people in my area of our state that get VERY offended by your joke

*quote*

its not my joke, its just a thaught

[Trinity's Crew]

[+TotemLake]

If you are a purist and consider the only way to find a cache is by coordinates only,

 

Purists don't think that. Misguided ones might, but it is not part of the Purists’ constitution.

 

 

Anyway, OP you sound like you have a problem with cheaters, as well you should.

 

Tough to do anything about though.

 

I wonder what Misguided One thinks about your allegation.

[+Tallahassee Lassie]

I agree that logging a cache that you haven't found is lame. However, I will log a cache that I cannot physically get to through no fault of my own. In one case, there was a serious ant infestation at the location and I was unable to grab the cache, even though I knew exactly where it was. On another, the cache was so high I wuold have to have had some way to climb a pole to get to it (I'm fairly short). In this instance the cache was only a 1/1, so it was not intended to be such a challenge.

[4wheelin_fool]

If someone cheats to inflate their numbers and impress other cachers, what happens is other cachers find out and it has the opposite effect. Any legit find after that looks suspicious. Confirmation codes are just silly, and actually make it easier to cheat - one cacher makes a find and then e-mails several people with the code.

Everything is fine the way it is.

[+headybrew]

I agree that logging a cache that you haven't found is lame. However, I will log a cache that I cannot physically get to through no fault of my own. In one case, there was a serious ant infestation at the location and I was unable to grab the cache, even though I knew exactly where it was. On another, the cache was so high I wuold have to have had some way to climb a pole to get to it (I'm fairly short). In this instance the cache was only a 1/1, so it was not intended to be such a challenge.

 

I suspose you can get special dispensation for that.

[+headybrew]

...

Confirmation codes are just silly, and actually make it easier to cheat - one cacher makes a find and then e-mails several people with the code.

Everything is fine the way it is.

 

I think it's highly unlikley that much of that would happen. And even if it did, that doesn't make it easier to cheat. In fact, it's still harder because you have to have a friend willing to conspire with you first.

 

And conspiracies are much easier to detect than single cheats. Cause sooner or later, one of the conspirators is gonna screw up, and then everyone gets exposed.

 

Then again, I'm not too sure we ever really did put a man on the moon either...

[+Yamahammer]

I agree that logging a cache that you haven't found is lame. However, I will log a cache that I cannot physically get to through no fault of my own. In one case, there was a serious ant infestation at the location and I was unable to grab the cache, even though I knew exactly where it was. On another, the cache was so high I wuold have to have had some way to climb a pole to get to it (I'm fairly short). In this instance the cache was only a 1/1, so it was not intended to be such a challenge.

 

I'm not so sure about this one. You didn't sign it. You don't log it as a 'find'.

[+Team Cotati]

I've never robbed a bank. If I ever do, I won't be blabbing the fact of it around town.

[+BlueDeuce]

I like 1/1 caches too.

 

It doesn't mean a walk around claiming caches that I can't get to.

 

"It's too hard, blah blah blah."

 

There a plenty of caches I haven't been able to find through no fault of my own.

 

That's life. I deal with it. I don't make excuses. I try again or move on.

 

either way I know what I walk away with.

Edited March 25, 2006 by BlueDeuce

[+Sagefox]

I agree that logging a cache that you haven't found is lame. However, I will log a cache that I cannot physically get to through no fault of my own. In one case, there was a serious ant infestation at the location and I was unable to grab the cache, even though I knew exactly where it was. On another, the cache was so high I wuold have to have had some way to climb a pole to get to it (I'm fairly short). In this instance the cache was only a 1/1, so it was not intended to be such a challenge.

 

This is usually considered to be in bad form and you might create some "negative vibes" in the local community if you log caches as finds without signing the logbook or at least opening the container. In the long view it is not really worth it to log finds this way. I logged a few of these early on but after about a year in the game I searched for them and deleted or changed them to notes.

 

If it were my cache hide I would probably allow a find if you at least touched the container but couldn't get it open but there would have to be a good story posted in your computer log and I would look for a private email with a very specific description of the actual container and location.

 

Containers requiring a climb definitely need the climb to be done and the container opened and logbook signed. That is why they placed it out of reach. In your example even if someone other than the owner put that 1/1 container out of reach it is still not a good idea to log it as a find.

[+woody_k]

The rules on the "getting started" page say this:

 

1. Take something from the cache

 

2. Leave something in the cache

 

3. Write about it in the logbook.

 

So by the letter of the rules simply by not trading is not a find!!!!

 

Also nothing says you have to log it on-line either.

 

With that said, in jest, only a few logbooks I didn't sign. Either there wasn't enough room on the log and no room in the micro to replace another sheet of paper or as was said in another post. It was attached in a place too high I couldn't reach it. In which there have been 2 so far for me.

 

I also know of one cacher who doesn't sign logs!!! But has also found his own caches. Not to sure if he gets the game. LOL!

[+HaLiJuSaPa]

I agree that logging a cache that you haven't found is lame. However, I will log a cache that I cannot physically get to through no fault of my own. In one case, there was a serious ant infestation at the location and I was unable to grab the cache, even though I knew exactly where it was. On another, the cache was so high I wuold have to have had some way to climb a pole to get to it (I'm fairly short). In this instance the cache was only a 1/1, so it was not intended to be such a challenge.

 

I don't think you should log that as a find, but if it is a 1/1, you SHOULD contact the owner, maybe even do a "needs Maintenance" log so that an admin becomes aware of it. By definition that should NOT be a 1/1, especially the terrain part. A true "1" terrain is supposed to be such that a person in a wheelchair could grab it from the chair, which it sounds like is certainly not the case here. This is why there are very few "1"s out there but a lot of "1.5"s. If the person even had it as a 1.5 I'd say the height thing is OK (though not too nice to short people; I'm average to shortish in height so I feel for you), but that definitely should not be a "1/1".

[+ChinCache]

I have signed the logbook of every trad. or e-mailed the info ness. for a virt. of every cache in my history.

I even felt "locationless caches were "cheating"

[+Robespierre]

No worries, Mate.

[+JMBella]

I agree that logging a cache that you haven't found is lame. However, I will log a cache that I cannot physically get to through no fault of my own. In one case, there was a serious ant infestation at the location and I was unable to grab the cache, even though I knew exactly where it was. On another, the cache was so high I wuold have to have had some way to climb a pole to get to it (I'm fairly short). In this instance the cache was only a 1/1, so it was not intended to be such a challenge.

 

I don't think you should log that as a find, but if it is a 1/1, you SHOULD contact the owner, maybe even do a "needs Maintenance" log so that an admin becomes aware of it. By definition that should NOT be a 1/1, especially the terrain part. A true "1" terrain is supposed to be such that a person in a wheelchair could grab it from the chair, which it sounds like is certainly not the case here. This is why there are very few "1"s out there but a lot of "1.5"s. If the person even had it as a 1.5 I'd say the height thing is OK (though not too nice to short people; I'm average to shortish in height so I feel for you), but that definitely should not be a "1/1".

 

I have to agree that ant infestation isn't a good enough reason. This is an outdoors game and ants, ticks, chiggers, snakes, spiders, bears and other wildlife are part of the experience. If one or more of these things prevent you from finding the cache, it's a DNF. My personal rule of thumb is: If my boots hit the ground and I don't find the cache I log a DNF, no matter what the reason.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

...

Confirmation codes are just silly, and actually make it easier to cheat - one cacher makes a find and then e-mails several people with the code.

Everything is fine the way it is.

 

I think it's highly unlikley that much of that would happen. And even if it did, that doesn't make it easier to cheat. In fact, it's still harder because you have to have a friend willing to conspire with you first.

 

And conspiracies are much easier to detect than single cheats. Cause sooner or later, one of the conspirators is gonna screw up, and then everyone gets exposed.

 

Then again, I'm not too sure we ever really did put a man on the moon either...

 

Yes, while such widesperad distribution of codes is technically possible, I have never encountered it in practice. We use passcodes on two caches in our Terrain 5 Psycho Urban Cache series, and we have found several extreme caches which use such codes. We have NEVER noticed a single case of anyone cheating and passing the passcode to others.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

I agree that logging a cache that you haven't found is lame. However, I will log a cache that I cannot physically get to through no fault of my own. In one case, there was a serious ant infestation at the location and I was unable to grab the cache, even though I knew exactly where it was. On another, the cache was so high I wuold have to have had some way to climb a pole to get to it (I'm fairly short). In this instance the cache was only a 1/1, so it was not intended to be such a challenge.

 

I don't think you should log that as a find, but if it is a 1/1, you SHOULD contact the owner, maybe even do a "needs Maintenance" log so that an admin becomes aware of it. By definition that should NOT be a 1/1, especially the terrain part. A true "1" terrain is supposed to be such that a person in a wheelchair could grab it from the chair, which it sounds like is certainly not the case here. This is why there are very few "1"s out there but a lot of "1.5"s. If the person even had it as a 1.5 I'd say the height thing is OK (though not too nice to short people; I'm average to shortish in height so I feel for you), but that definitely should not be a "1/1".

 

I much agree with hairymon, although in the final run I am not here to judge the poster and her decisions, and I am quite fine with whatever way you chooose to dal with this situation. However, were I in your shoes, I would not hav claimed a find on the site withthe ants -- to me, ants and even mountain lions and rattlesnakes are part of the sport. As for the 1/1 pole cache, I would have declared a DNF and then suggested to the cache owner (and next to the reviewers, if needed) that the Terrain rating should be raised to at least a 2 or likely higher. The Terrain rating was obviously misleading and wrong. Again, however, much as I have indicated above, that is simply how I would have done it. I am not here to try to impose my way of doing things upon you (the poster who filed the find claims.)

[+LRC91]

We have a very active group of cachers in the foothills of NC. We even watch over each others caches. Recently a cacher from another state made a cache run through our area and claimed to have found a cache that takes quite some time to hike into. His log entry was very short. “found it today passing through. Thanks for the fun”. Most people who have found this cache post much longer logs talking about the hike or the scenery. Some of the locals went the next weekend to check the cache and found that this person had not found the cache or at lease had not signed the log book. The owner who was in the group emailed the cacher to ask what was up. He did not respond but did delete his entry on the cache page.

 

On Geocaching there are no repercussions for this but on Terracaching the sponsors of the cacher can be contacted and his sponsorship revoked. This would effectively kick him out of the web sight and he would no longer be able to access any of the caches or coordinates again.

 

Geocaching needs something like this.

[+Alan2]

The "geopolice". Just what we need.

[+HaLiJuSaPa]

I agree that logging a cache that you haven't found is lame. However, I will log a cache that I cannot physically get to through no fault of my own. In one case, there was a serious ant infestation at the location and I was unable to grab the cache, even though I knew exactly where it was. On another, the cache was so high I wuold have to have had some way to climb a pole to get to it (I'm fairly short). In this instance the cache was only a 1/1, so it was not intended to be such a challenge.

 

I don't think you should log that as a find, but if it is a 1/1, you SHOULD contact the owner, maybe even do a "needs Maintenance" log so that an admin becomes aware of it. By definition that should NOT be a 1/1, especially the terrain part. A true "1" terrain is supposed to be such that a person in a wheelchair could grab it from the chair, which it sounds like is certainly not the case here. This is why there are very few "1"s out there but a lot of "1.5"s. If the person even had it as a 1.5 I'd say the height thing is OK (though not too nice to short people; I'm average to shortish in height so I feel for you), but that definitely should not be a "1/1".

 

I much agree with hairymon, although in the final run I am not here to judge the poster and her decisions, and I am quite fine with whatever way you chooose to dal with this situation. However, were I in your shoes, I would not hav claimed a find on the site withthe ants -- to me, ants and even mountain lions and rattlesnakes are part of the sport. As for the 1/1 pole cache, I would have declared a DNF and then suggested to the cache owner (and next to the reviewers, if needed) that the Terrain rating should be raised to at least a 2 or likely higher. The Terrain rating was obviously misleading and wrong. Again, however, much as I have indicated above, that is simply how I would have done it. I am not here to try to impose my way of doing things upon you (the poster who filed the find claims.)

 

I agree with you and the other poster on the ants issue, it is the "great outdoors" after all

 

As to a later comment about "geopolice" (though he may have referred to the entry about Terracaching, not my entry), I don't think a log or email to cache owner noting that someone couldn't access a 1/1 because of a physical limitation is "policing". The guidelines clearly state that a terrain "1" cannot have a physical limitation to it, that is why you rate an "easy" cache with such a limitation a 1.5. I would consider it "policing" too if the cache were even a 1.5 terrain and such a complaint were made, it is the fact that it is was essentially rated "handicapped accessible" that is the problem. There are people who purposely search out "1/1"s because they may not be physically able to do much higher and I can just imagine the frustration they must feel when they research such caches and then they get there and find out that this definition of the cache being accessible to them was a lie!

 

I'm not saying the cache owner should have his/her membership revoked or anything over it, just be asked to up the rating to a 1.5 or more.

Edited March 26, 2006 by hairymon

[gerboa]

I'm baffled why /how anyone can think that the number of caches found has any real

significance. Like the Gold medal for the Decathlon or Marathon compared to Gold Medal For Air Rifle..yes they do compete with air rifles..fairground stuff at the Olympics.

There is reviewer with 5 caches..i guess they must be Decathlon rated.

Edited March 26, 2006 by gerboa

[+briansnat]

The rules on the "getting started" page say this:

 

1. Take something from the cache

 

2. Leave something in the cache

 

3. Write about it in the logbook.

 

So by the letter of the rules simply by not trading is not a find!!!!

 

I do take the logbook from the cache, write in it, then leave it in the cache.

[+Ed_S]

Cant anybody cheat at this? just post that they found the cache and never leave home? Mabey there should be a verification code on caches

 

Since caching doesn't reward anyone, other than personal satisfaction, for finding caches, and it doesn't matter to any of us whether someone else has found the cache before we did, it really shouldn't matter to anyone if the person before them really found it or just said they did. That doesn't affect my enjoyment of looking for the cache in any way.

[CoyoteRed]

...

Confirmation codes are just silly, and actually make it easier to cheat - one cacher makes a find and then e-mails several people with the code.

Everything is fine the way it is.

 

I think it's highly unlikley that much of that would happen. And even if it did, that doesn't make it easier to cheat. In fact, it's still harder because you have to have a friend willing to conspire with you first.

 

What's the difference between a smilie and a geocoin icon?

[CoyoteRed]

Cant anybody cheat at this? just post that they found the cache and never leave home? Mabey there should be a verification code on caches

 

Since caching doesn't reward anyone, other than personal satisfaction, for finding caches, and it doesn't matter to any of us whether someone else has found the cache before we did, it really shouldn't matter to anyone if the person before them really found it or just said they did. That doesn't affect my enjoyment of looking for the cache in any way.

 

You must have BrianSnat on your ignore list.

 

Yes, it matters. A bogus find can make someone think the cache is there and they can waste a bunch of time hunting for it.

 

Now, going after a cache that is missing and no one knows it is different than a cache being missing and someone saying it is there.

 

That's why it hurts others.

[+lissie]

I agree that logging a cache that you haven't found is lame. However, I will log a cache that I cannot physically get to through no fault of my own. In one case, there was a serious ant infestation at the location and I was unable to grab the cache, even though I knew exactly where it was. On another, the cache was so high I wuold have to have had some way to climb a pole to get to it (I'm fairly short). In this instance the cache was only a 1/1, so it was not intended to be such a challenge.

 

Being 5’ nothing even on tiptoes, there are many caches that I can’t reach! I logged DNFs on each one until I got smart and bought a reaching/grabbing arm and after a bit of caching in certain parts of Nebraska added a stepladder to my geocaching arsenal. While certain caches may be easy for some, hiking through wildlife areas with a 3-step ladder can be difficult. You have to be creative and use whatever you can find in the georide or nature to retrieve and replace the cache. Then you do a lot of whining in your log about no respect! Gotta love the tall guys!

[+HaLiJuSaPa]

I agree that logging a cache that you haven't found is lame. However, I will log a cache that I cannot physically get to through no fault of my own. In one case, there was a serious ant infestation at the location and I was unable to grab the cache, even though I knew exactly where it was. On another, the cache was so high I wuold have to have had some way to climb a pole to get to it (I'm fairly short). In this instance the cache was only a 1/1, so it was not intended to be such a challenge.

 

Being 5’ nothing even on tiptoes, there are many caches that I can’t reach! I logged DNFs on each one until I got smart and bought a reaching/grabbing arm and after a bit of caching in certain parts of Nebraska added a stepladder to my geocaching arsenal. While certain caches may be easy for some, hiking through wildlife areas with a 3-step ladder can be difficult. You have to be creative and use whatever you can find in the georide or nature to retrieve and replace the cache. Then you do a lot of whining in your log about no respect! Gotta love the tall guys!

 

This is why even if the cache were a 1.5 I wouldn't consider it's height to be a legitimate complaint. My issue was that it was rated a 1. Good point Lissie!

[+woody_k]

The rules on the "getting started" page say this:

 

1. Take something from the cache

 

2. Leave something in the cache

 

3. Write about it in the logbook.

 

So by the letter of the rules simply by not trading is not a find!!!!

 

I do take the logbook from the cache, write in it, then leave it in the cache.

 

You know I have never thought of it that way! LOL!! I liked your post. I'm glad you took it as it was suppose to be....a slight joke.

[+AuntieWeasel]

I'm in the "sign the book or it ain't a find" camp. Though, I have to say, I've made a couple of exceedingly stupid marks in the book when I left my pen behind.

 

Cheating happens, but (from what I can tell) very rarely. If nobody's seen your name in the physical logs, and you never go to a meet and chat about famous local caches, or show up in the forums and do the same, then you kind of don't exist. You couldn't write much in your online logs, or you'd give away that you didn't know anything about the hide. If you just showed up on a few hundred cache pages as TNLN TFTC and nowhere else, nobody would have any reason to remember you at all. So, who would you be bragging for?

 

As to whether it matters intrinsically...of course it does. Cheaters suck, even if nobody gets hurt. It's like saying it's okay to cheat at poker as long as you aren't playing for money.

[+Ed_S]

 

Yes, it matters. A bogus find can make someone think the cache is there and they can waste a bunch of time hunting for it.

 

Now, going after a cache that is missing and no one knows it is different than a cache being missing and someone saying it is there.

 

That's why it hurts others.

 

Good point - I didn't think about that. We don't have anybody (that I'm aware of) here in my area who fakes their finds. So I have to admit that doesn't cross my mind when I see a find posted after a few DNFs or after a long period of time with no finds listed.

[+Ed_S]

As to whether it matters intrinsically...of course it does. Cheaters suck, even if nobody gets hurt. It's like saying it's okay to cheat at poker as long as you aren't playing for money.

 

I want to assure one and all that I also think cheaters suck - and suck out loud! And I guess I see your point about playing poker - at the end of the evening you still have as much money as you came with, so you're not really out anything, except that nobody enjoys playing with a cheater.

 

I was looking at it from the standpoint that whether the person who found the cache before me really did or didn't find it in no way changes my search for the cache. I hadn't considered the point that Coyote Red made, though, and I can see where faked logs can, in some cases, cause negative consequences.