Interesting New Way To "pad" Numbers

[+RockyRaab]

So I get the usual email notification that someone has found two of my caches. Nice - except that the "find" was for two caches that have been gone and archived for a whole year.

 

Both "finds" were by the same person, and both were dated back when the caches were still in existence. Date they wrote the Log: July 5, 2006. Date he claimed the find: May 2005! Log comments on both were simply "Found it."

 

Now, I sometimes can't log a find because I'm out of town with no web access, and soemtimes I might just lose track of a find for a few days - but FOURTEEN MONTHS? Somehow, I doubt it.

 

So, the only conclusion I can draw is that this pathetic loser enters "finds" on caches where there's no hope of disproving his lie, i.e. long-archived caches.

 

I considered deleting the bogus logs, but that wouldn't help anything except to "correct" his bogus smiley count. Suggestions on what to do? Report him to geocache?

[Trinity's Crew]

<Probably innocent. Nevermind>

 

Edit: Removed comment because I spoke without thinking. (or looking)

Edited July 8, 2006 by Trinity's Crew

[+RockyRaab]

No logs. Both caches were destroyed, one by construction and the other by getting waterlogged.

[bogleman]

Well you have no proof that the cacher did not in fact find the cache. I have been working on back-dating all the caches my son found with me since 11/04 even the archived ones, so it does happen. The site allows this feature so it is no big deal

 

I would do a bit better than a found it log and he has been typing each log - not bad for a kid.

[Mushtang]

Why don't you email the cacher and ask for an explaination?

 

I'm sure it's probably innocent. It could be:

A] Someone that used to cache in a team, and is now going back and relogging their finds on their own cache name because they're no longer in the team for whatever reason,

B] Someone that can't change their cache name because of the new site changes, so they made a new one and is going back and logging finds under the new name to duplicate the old name, or

C] Someone that didn't used to log any of their finds online but has decided to go back and do so.

 

However, if you find out (or seriously suspect) that it's

D] Someone cheating by logging only old archived caches,

what does it really matter? I know you have the option of deleting bogus finds, and I'm not suggesting that you don't, but if you didn't delete them would it make a difference anywhere?

[+Lil Devil]

I've taken up to a year to enter some logs in the past and was only questioned on one of them. I just explained the circumstances, and accurately described the location of the cache, and the owner was happy.

 

So if you're that suspicious, why not just email the guy and ask him to describe the cache and/or location. If it's legit, you'll get a nice answer. If it's not legit, you'll probably be called some names, and you can delete the find.

[+Team Neos]

I looked at your archived caches for logs in May 2005 that only said "Found it" and didn't see any. I did see two that said "Found it with my dad"

 

If those are the ones you are talking about, then it is likely a child that has decided they want their own account, and is backlogging to cover the caches they did with a parent last year.

[+Team JSAM]

Report him to geocache?

 

who is this mr. geocache that you speak of?

 

I would email them and ask them why the late logging, that might answer your question.

 

-TJ

[+Wadcutter]

Found one who was doing that. They had changed their user name and was going back to re-log all their previous caches under their new name. Don't have any idea if that's the case here, just something I ran into once.

[CoyoteRed]

Check out the March 2, 2005 log here. I'm thinking the kid is, what, 6 now? Not bad.

 

The dad vouches for him in some of the logs. Many of caches he's logging is still active and presumably the owner can verify the finds. Looks like a legitimate back logging to me. Took only a couple of minutes to put my mind to rest.

[+VegasCacheHounds]

Kinda sad that anymore, thanks to all the recent threads I imagine, that cheating or numbers padding is the first thing suspected.

[+RockyRaab]

Kinda sad that anymore, thanks to all the recent threads I imagine, that cheating or numbers padding is the first thing suspected.

 

Hmmmm.... Well, perhaps I did leap to a conclusion. I didn't think the "with my dad" addition was significant, but you all have suggested an explanation that makes it so - and explains the late posting as well.

 

I demur and hereby offer an apology to the young cacher.

 

(Yes, it IS a shame that any irregularity creates the immediate suspicion of cheating.)

[dulcimoo]

Does it matter? In this SPORT we are cowpeating with ourselves. To find the cache is the reward (and yes I do like the stuff) but realy...what does one get out of logging a cache not actualy found? The numbers mean ... nothing. So OK get the ben of doubt. It's not a big deal ... chill man.

[+hikergps]

Um, I'm not sure where you're from, but "cowpeating" is illegal here.

[+The Leprechauns]

I think with a username like "dulcimoo," we all can reach a conclusion about where "cowpeating" stands on his "other hobbies" list. Sweet Bessie....

[SlytherinAlex]

I have quite a lot of unlogged caches that I did with my 12 yo last year. She logged them but I haven't got around to logging mine yet. No problem except last week I did a cache and reading through the earlier logs, found myself already in there. No log = still shows up on PQs.

 

So I'm busily back logging all my old stuff now. I HATE doing the same cache twice, for any reason.

 

alex.

[+HaLiJuSaPa]

Check out the March 2, 2005 log here. I'm thinking the kid is, what, 6 now? Not bad.

 

The dad vouches for him in some of the logs. Many of caches he's logging is still active and presumably the owner can verify the finds. Looks like a legitimate back logging to me. Took only a couple of minutes to put my mind to rest.

 

Are you impressed that he typed in the log (which I'm not sure he did) or that he found it at such a young age? Our son is first turning 5 this Tuesday and he was the first to find a couple of our finds and we noted it in our log.

 

If he typed it yes, I'd be extremely impressed, but again, I'm not so sure....

Edited July 15, 2006 by HaLiJuSaPa

[+Team Neos]

HaLiJuSaPa. is your son your oldest child? If so, I think you are going to be amazed at the progress he makes in the next year or so. Of course, all children mature and develop at different rates. Two of my three children had basic keyboarding skills by the end of first grade--the other one didn't care for the computer then. Interestingly enough, he is the one who uses the computer now for on-line gaming, and the other two just use it to get work done. Hmmm. They all had keyboarding classes in first through third grade, thank goodness. The kids at the school system where I teach don't get it until 6th grade--by then they have learned too many bad habits.

 

Anyway, the average 6 year old has enough dexerity to type a very simple note like that. They do still need supervision on the computer, and likely need assistance locating specific URLS etc.

[+HaLiJuSaPa]

HaLiJuSaPa. is your son your oldest child? If so, I think you are going to be amazed at the progress he makes in the next year or so. Of course, all children mature and develop at different rates. Two of my three children had basic keyboarding skills by the end of first grade--the other one didn't care for the computer then. Interestingly enough, he is the one who uses the computer now for on-line gaming, and the other two just use it to get work done. Hmmm. They all had keyboarding classes in first through third grade, thank goodness. The kids at the school system where I teach don't get it until 6th grade--by then they have learned too many bad habits.

 

Anyway, the average 6 year old has enough dexerity to type a very simple note like that. They do still need supervision on the computer, and likely need assistance locating specific URLS etc.

 

Yes, he is the oldest. And we never meant to say that it was impossible for the 6 year old to type in the log, it just wasn't clear looking from the post that he did.

 

If our son could perfectly read and spell, he'd probably be typing logs in now too, you are right about the leap in progress. If you look at our profile, we note that he already plays Super Collapse about as good as some adults. And our 3 year old daughter can actually get to about level 4 or 5 on the game already (he gets to level 12). THanks for noting!

[+headybrew]

Check out the March 2, 2005 log here. I'm thinking the kid is, what, 6 now? Not bad.

 

The dad vouches for him in some of the logs. Many of caches he's logging is still active and presumably the owner can verify the finds. Looks like a legitimate back logging to me. Took only a couple of minutes to put my mind to rest.

 

Are you impressed that he typed in the log (which I'm not sure he did) or that he found it at such a young age? Our son is first turning 5 this Tuesday and he was the first to find a couple of our finds and we noted it in our log.

 

If he typed it yes, I'd be extremely impressed, but again, I'm not so sure....

 

 

Heh Heh... at the age of six, he's already developed a bad taste for micros ?

Biography:

I like to fo treasure hunting with my dad, but I don't like the 'little ones'.

[+briansnat]

As others said, it could be legit. I would think though if it was legit there would be an explanation. Something like "Just catching up with old logs", or "logging under new account". Its not necessary to do this, but I think most people who are back logging would explain why.

 

There are however people who pad their numbers by logging old caches. They figure that the owner may no longer be active, or might not have the log anymore so the find can't be challenged. Pretty pathetic, but it happens.

 

I agree with the idea of e-mailing and asking for an explanation.

[4HCBH]

I just openned a new account recently, and I never even considerred re-logging all my old caches with the new name. Since my new name wouldn't appear in the log book, I figured it made no sense. Besides, as it was stated, the numbers mean nothing. Sure, they imply some experience, but I would hope that I would not be judged based on having found lots of caches vs. none. So... I just can't understant why anyone would pad thier numbers. What good does that do anyone?

 

Cach Advance

[+Bear Paughs]

We just gave our boys, 8 and 10, their own accounts and now we have the task ahead of us of getting them caught up on their logs for the last year, some on archived caches. I think most of the cache owners will recognize them by their usernames, but to avoid confusion I just posted to our local group a heads up message to be prepared for an onslaught of backlogs from them.

[+briansnat]

I just openned a new account recently, and I never even considerred re-logging all my old caches with the new name. Since my new name wouldn't appear in the log book, I figured it made no sense. Besides, as it was stated, the numbers mean nothing.

 

There are other reasons other than numbers. If you back log your finds under your new account, caches you already found won't appear on your nearest cache ssearch pages and on any pocket queries where you filter out caches you already found.

 

That will at least prevent you from finding a cache, thinking "hmmmmm, this seems familiar" and seeing your old name already in the logbook.

 

Now back to your regularly scheduled topic.

[Mushtang]

I just openned a new account recently, and I never even considerred re-logging all my old caches with the new name. Since my new name wouldn't appear in the log book, I figured it made no sense.

As BrianSnat stated, it would help you with pocket caches and such.

 

Besides, as it was stated, the numbers mean nothing.

They might not mean anything to you, but they mean something to other people. If I changed my name or split from a team, I'd definitely want to re-log my finds so my numbers would be accurate. I love my numbers.

 

Sure, they imply some experience, but I would hope that I would not be judged based on having found lots of caches vs. none.

You will be.

 

So... I just can't understant why anyone would pad thier numbers.

Agreed. I would want my numbers to be accurate.

 

What good does that do anyone?

None. And what harm does it to to anyone?

[+briansnat]

None. And what harm does it to to anyone?

 

As a person who has wasted his time and gas going after a missing cache because it had recent finds that turned out to be phony, I can tell you that I didn't think it was harmless.

 

The owner who delays checking up on his cache because it has a recent find might also not feelthat it's harmless.