Jump to content

Cheaters


Recommended Posts

I assume by cheaters you are referring to people who log finds on caches they didn't actually find. They are not only cheating themselves.

 

When a person logs a "Found it" he is essentially telling the geocaching community that the cache is there. That can entice people into wasting their time searching for a cache that is missing. I know of one geocacher who was lured into a fruitless 100 mile round trip because someone logged a false find on a cache. Personally, I wasted my time and gas searching for a long missing cache because there were recent "finds" on it that turned out to be phony.

 

These false finds also tell the owner that the cache is there. In my case I had a cache with several DNFs, then a "found it". That made me assume that the cache was OK, when in fact it had fallen deeper into a hole making finding it nearly impossible. That found it log was not genuine, but because of it I delayed a needed maintenance trip.

 

So by logging thse phony finds you can cause other geocachers to waste their time and gas. You are screwing with your fellow geocachers and that isn't nice.

Link to comment

Why care if someone cheats. It's not like there's a cache prize for the most caches. It's for the fun of caching. If you cheat, you're really cheating yourself.

You might have to be more specific on what is considered "cheating."

 

In the general sense, widespread cheating eventually leads to loss of credibility to an activity. Cheating is often overlooked when an activity is experiencing growth, where growth = significant increase in number of participants. An activity will often need to be regulated to demonstrate that it's fair enough so participants don't leave in droves.

 

If you go back 8 years, you'll see plenty of examples. Major League Baseball, the stock market, eBay...

 

Geocaching isn't a multi-billion dollar industry like above, so the consequences of cheating are far less serious. But it can still suffer from credibility problems, and drive people away eventually. If you want my opinion, cheating isn't a problem in Geocaching so people can still play the game the way they want. :(

Link to comment

Why care if someone cheats. It's not like there's a cache prize for the most caches. It's for the fun of caching. If you cheat, you're really cheating yourself.

BrianSnat gave you a good break down on why.

 

However even if he could not come up with a list at all, cheating matters because it's wrong. When good people allow wrong things to happen and do nothing they are encouraging more of the same. The right thing is often the hardest to do, but it makes life better for us all.

 

The very fact that you called it cheating instead of "advanced logging for caches someone may find some day" (still wrong) means you know this.

Link to comment

Well...

 

When you post a "found it" log to a cache, you are saying, "I found the cache". If you did not, in fact, find the cache, then you're lying. Granted, there's no lasting material damage done, but lying is still lying, and when you post a lie to a cache page, not only are you lying to the cache owner (as briansnat points out) but you're lying to everyone else you play the game with. Most people don't like being lied to, even if there are no direct consequences.

Link to comment

I don't know but I THINK that cheaters will wean themselves away from even playing.

 

There is obviously no joy of accomplishment in lying about a find, heck, you can do it from the couch. Maybe a short term ego push or minimal recognition by another cacher, but that is short lived . . . they will eventually burn out and leave (IMO), so ' no worries!' :(

Link to comment

I don't know but I THINK that cheaters will wean themselves away from even playing.

 

There is obviously no joy of accomplishment in lying about a find, heck, you can do it from the couch. Maybe a short term ego push or minimal recognition by another cacher, but that is short lived . . . they will eventually burn out and leave (IMO), so ' no worries!' :(

 

ayep.

Link to comment

I don't know but I THINK that cheaters will wean themselves away from even playing.

 

There is obviously no joy of accomplishment in lying about a find, heck, you can do it from the couch. Maybe a short term ego push or minimal recognition by another cacher, but that is short lived . . . they will eventually burn out and leave (IMO), so ' no worries!' :(

 

It really doesn't seem to pan out that way. Some of the biggest cheaters have been around for quite some time and are still going strong.

Link to comment

Could always post 'I found the area where the cache should be, couldnt find it but am logging the find anyways'

 

Could also toss a filmcan out ya window when ya cant find the cache & say ya found it.

 

And before anyone gets upset, I actually thought about that idea long before I came onto these forums & heard about someone who may or may not have done something like that.

 

Course I thought about it for a moment then shook my head & decided not too as the smileys dont really mean that much to me, I just like the areas here it takes me too.

I found a couple SP's I didnt know existed & like just going to them then sitting there people watching & enjoying the scenery. My cache in a local SP was awesome today in the fog, the way it rolled in & out. I wanted to go play paintball but no one was around to do so.

Link to comment

I don't know but I THINK that cheaters will wean themselves away from even playing.

 

There is obviously no joy of accomplishment in lying about a find, heck, you can do it from the couch. Maybe a short term ego push or minimal recognition by another cacher, but that is short lived . . . they will eventually burn out and leave (IMO), so ' no worries!' :(

A cheater that I know personally is proud of their multi-thousand "finds", and loves the game so much that they still go several times a week.

 

I call them a cheater because if they can't find a cache and they're sure it was muggled (vs just not finding it), they'll ask the hider for permission to log it as a find anyway. They'll also log caches as found if they look more than once and can't find it. They won't put it on their ignore list, they'll just log a find and move on.

 

This is how they want to play. To them this is acceptable, and I haven't tried to tell them otherwise. They played this way long before I met them. Their numbers mean as little to me as my numbers mean to everyone reading this.

Link to comment

Has Groundspeak ever considered assigning confirmation numbers to caches? Sort of like TB tracking numbers, the cache confirmation number would be located on the cache log and a "found it" log would not be able to be posted without it... I realize that it is probably way to late to implement something like this, but just a thought.

 

Bottom line would be that if you find the cache you can log it, if you didn't find it, well.. you couldn't log it.

Link to comment

Has Groundspeak ever considered assigning confirmation numbers to caches? Sort of like TB tracking numbers, the cache confirmation number would be located on the cache log and a "found it" log would not be able to be posted without it... I realize that it is probably way to late to implement something like this, but just a thought.

 

Bottom line would be that if you find the cache you can log it, if you didn't find it, well.. you couldn't log it.

That's what the log book is for. The owner can verify the find by checking the log book, if it's important to him.

 

There's no reason for the website to try and make it impossible to cheat, since "cheating" doesn't result in anyone "winning". If someone I know has 1,780 actual finds instead of the 1,800 that they claim with their Find count, does it change anything for you?

Link to comment

Has Groundspeak ever considered assigning confirmation numbers to caches? Sort of like TB tracking numbers, the cache confirmation number would be located on the cache log and a "found it" log would not be able to be posted without it... I realize that it is probably way to late to implement something like this, but just a thought.

 

Bottom line would be that if you find the cache you can log it, if you didn't find it, well.. you couldn't log it.

 

This kind of thing became known as a "password cache" and were classified by TPTB as very naughty indeed.

Link to comment

Has Groundspeak ever considered assigning confirmation numbers to caches? Sort of like TB tracking numbers, the cache confirmation number would be located on the cache log and a "found it" log would not be able to be posted without it... I realize that it is probably way to late to implement something like this, but just a thought.

 

Bottom line would be that if you find the cache you can log it, if you didn't find it, well.. you couldn't log it.

 

This kind of thing became known as a "password cache" and were classified by TPTB as very naughty indeed.

 

That would be too simple of a solution, and some people here would have nothing to gripe about if it was implemented. One of the other caching sites does this, and like it or not, it eliminates false finders.

Link to comment

Has Groundspeak ever considered assigning confirmation numbers to caches? Sort of like TB tracking numbers, the cache confirmation number would be located on the cache log and a "found it" log would not be able to be posted without it... I realize that it is probably way to late to implement something like this, but just a thought.

 

Bottom line would be that if you find the cache you can log it, if you didn't find it, well.. you couldn't log it.

That's what the log book is for. The owner can verify the find by checking the log book, if it's important to him.

 

There's no reason for the website to try and make it impossible to cheat, since "cheating" doesn't result in anyone "winning". If someone I know has 1,780 actual finds instead of the 1,800 that they claim with their Find count, does it change anything for you?

 

I really couldn't care less one way or the other, I was just offering a potential solution to those who find it a problem.

Link to comment

I know of a geocacher who called and asked for help on a perticular find. he was not from our area and truly was experienceing a difficult time on this one cache. We moved him on from stage 1 to stage 2. Then He called back to say that, that one wasn't there either. Within 10 minutes we get another call from said cacher. He was having a time locating another cache. Again we provided him with an additional clue. (mind you these aren't our caches, we had not even found them recently). 15 calls later, we are like dude come on, are you even trying to find these things by yourself. Then in his log for those perticular caches, he didn't mention the fact he had to call for help. To me this is cheating. This geocacher has a high number of finds. To me he was just asking me to tell him where it was. It took me a while to realize this actually happened. I felt like I was cache raped.

Link to comment

Has Groundspeak ever considered assigning confirmation numbers to caches? Sort of like TB tracking numbers, the cache confirmation number would be located on the cache log and a "found it" log would not be able to be posted without it...

 

It wouldn't work.

How would a finder know what the number is in the innumerable cases where the log is destroyed by water, eaten by mice, etc? Not to mention that there are quite a few caches out there where the hiders neglect to put in a log in the first place, throw a scrap or two of paper in and call it a log, and/or recycle logs from other caches.

 

And yes, I have seen all three of those circumstances in newly-listed caches.

Link to comment

I know of a geocacher who called and asked for help on a perticular find. he was not from our area and truly was experienceing a difficult time on this one cache. We moved him on from stage 1 to stage 2. Then He called back to say that, that one wasn't there either. Within 10 minutes we get another call from said cacher. He was having a time locating another cache. Again we provided him with an additional clue. (mind you these aren't our caches, we had not even found them recently). 15 calls later, we are like dude come on, are you even trying to find these things by yourself. Then in his log for those perticular caches, he didn't mention the fact he had to call for help. To me this is cheating. This geocacher has a high number of finds. To me he was just asking me to tell him where it was. It took me a while to realize this actually happened. I felt like I was cache raped.

 

Wow!

 

I serve as a phone-a-friend for any geocacher that wants a clue. My contact info is widely published and it is a rare day that I don't get at least one call from a cacher that needs help.

 

I also tour-guide folks when someone wants to come to town and have company hunting caches, wants to see the best our area has to offer or wants a local to take them on a numbers run.

 

In both cases I will give them as much or as little help as they ask for... a discrete hint, blatant clue or dead-on instructions.

 

Few want more than a hint, unless they have DNF'd it before or they are traveling and won't be back this way for a while.

 

I know most of the cachers around here and none have objected. Two have asked me not to give up the finals on difficult multis, although they say it's okay to give hints on each stage.

 

This is a win-win for everyone.

 

Interesting how geocachers can reach such extremes of opinion; I don't think DNFs are any fun and believe that those who so desire should be able to reach out for help, you apparantly think having help is cheating!

 

I hope my way of thinking prevails! :(

 

Ed

Link to comment

Has Groundspeak ever considered assigning confirmation numbers to caches? Sort of like TB tracking numbers, the cache confirmation number would be located on the cache log and a "found it" log would not be able to be posted without it... I realize that it is probably way to late to implement something like this, but just a thought.

 

Bottom line would be that if you find the cache you can log it, if you didn't find it, well.. you couldn't log it.

 

This kind of thing became known as a "password cache" and were classified by TPTB as very naughty indeed.

 

That would be too simple of a solution, and some people here would have nothing to gripe about if it was implemented. One of the other caching sites does this, and like it or not, it eliminates false finders.

 

I disagree, soon you would find people trading lists of cache confirmation codes, just like people trade lists of trackables to get the icons. I know that I have been approached by people asking for lists of virtual answers in my area. The cache confirmation codes would become another commodity to be traded by the folks who do that sort of thing. Most of this stuff is like a padlock on a door, it keep s the honest folks honest, but a person who is determined to get in, will just find a way to work around it.

Link to comment

Has Groundspeak ever considered assigning confirmation numbers to caches? Sort of like TB tracking numbers, the cache confirmation number would be located on the cache log and a "found it" log would not be able to be posted without it... I realize that it is probably way to late to implement something like this, but just a thought.

 

Bottom line would be that if you find the cache you can log it, if you didn't find it, well.. you couldn't log it.

I hope it doesn't come to that. Inability to adhere to the honor system speaks badly for us, the participants.

 

Better solution would be a " :wub: tax" since more finds you log, more GC.com resources you are using, so you should be paying more $ for Premium Membership. :(

Edited by budd-rdc
Link to comment

Has Groundspeak ever considered assigning confirmation numbers to caches? Sort of like TB tracking numbers, the cache confirmation number would be located on the cache log and a "found it" log would not be able to be posted without it... I realize that it is probably way to late to implement something like this, but just a thought.

 

Bottom line would be that if you find the cache you can log it, if you didn't find it, well.. you couldn't log it.

 

This kind of thing became known as a "password cache" and were classified by TPTB as very naughty indeed.

 

Not quite correct. Anybody who wants to add a code word to their cache for verification purposes is free to do so. What TPTB ended was the practice of hiding caches with a code word and no log book. They were essentially virtuals without the interesting object.

 

Anyway, code words in caches aren't going to end cheating. Cheaters by their very nature will find a way around it, most likely by trading code words.

Link to comment

On topic from my earlier post. I felt as you did, regarding helping a friend out. I didn't think anything of it until later, looking back, I felt that he should have attempted to find a little bit longer on each one, VS 5 minutes then a phone call. But then again this is my opinion and everyone has them.

Link to comment

I don't know but I THINK that cheaters will wean themselves away from even playing.

 

There is obviously no joy of accomplishment in lying about a find, heck, you can do it from the couch. Maybe a short term ego push or minimal recognition by another cacher, but that is short lived . . . they will eventually burn out and leave (IMO), so ' no worries!' :wub:

 

It really doesn't seem to pan out that way. Some of the biggest cheaters have been around for quite some time and are still going strong.

:(

Link to comment

I know of a geocacher who called and asked for help on a perticular find. he was not from our area and truly was experienceing a difficult time on this one cache. We moved him on from stage 1 to stage 2. Then He called back to say that, that one wasn't there either. Within 10 minutes we get another call from said cacher. He was having a time locating another cache. Again we provided him with an additional clue. (mind you these aren't our caches, we had not even found them recently). 15 calls later, we are like dude come on, are you even trying to find these things by yourself. Then in his log for those perticular caches, he didn't mention the fact he had to call for help. To me this is cheating. This geocacher has a high number of finds. To me he was just asking me to tell him where it was. It took me a while to realize this actually happened. I felt like I was cache raped.

 

Wow!

 

I serve as a phone-a-friend for any geocacher that wants a clue. My contact info is widely published and it is a rare day that I don't get at least one call from a cacher that needs help.

 

I also tour-guide folks when someone wants to come to town and have company hunting caches, wants to see the best our area has to offer or wants a local to take them on a numbers run.

 

In both cases I will give them as much or as little help as they ask for... a discrete hint, blatant clue or dead-on instructions.

 

Few want more than a hint, unless they have DNF'd it before or they are traveling and won't be back this way for a while.

 

I know most of the cachers around here and none have objected. Two have asked me not to give up the finals on difficult multis, although they say it's okay to give hints on each stage.

 

This is a win-win for everyone.

 

Interesting how geocachers can reach such extremes of opinion; I don't think DNFs are any fun and believe that those who so desire should be able to reach out for help, you apparantly think having help is cheating!

 

I hope my way of thinking prevails! :(

 

Ed

I believe the question of provinding additional hints should be decided by the cache owner. They may want to be the only provider of hints, or they may allow others to do so, but explicit permission should be obtained prior to providing hints by anyone else. In the case mentioned above, it seems the cache owners are the victims (if any). There is nothing wrong, bad or 'unfun' about a DNF. If an owner want every seeker to be a finder, they'll hide accordingly.

Link to comment

Gosh, I forgot what I was going to write. Most likely somthing about numbers and I dont care.

Today I retrieved one of my own caches that needs maintenance, and I found one of the dreaded sticker logs. UGH. ( could start a forum about folks too lazy to sign the log and place sticker) . Thing about THIS sticker log is........it came from some very high number folks, and its ON the cache, not the log.

No, Im not going to remove the smiley. They can have it with the other hundreds upon hundreds.

I guess thats all I can say.

Link to comment

Would you consider this cheating also.

I have a cache, Shenanigans1. Its a dificult cache to find. Most geocachers email me for clues but here lately they have been asking those who have found the cache for information and they are giving it to them. Takes the fun out of finding it yourself doesnt it?

 

I just don't get that concerned about how folks come to find my cache. I would think it would be cool that folks would discuss my cache.

 

Caches that I put out are for other folks enjoyment, not mine. If they still enjoyed finding the cache, regardless of how who they got information about it, it's cool with me.

Link to comment

Not quite correct. Anybody who wants to add a code word to their cache for verification purposes is free to do so. What TPTB ended was the practice of hiding caches with a code word and no log book. They were essentially virtuals without the interesting object.

 

Anyway, code words in caches aren't going to end cheating. Cheaters by their very nature will find a way around it, most likely by trading code words.

 

Brainsnat,

 

And the sad thing is that IF these people spent the time and energy they do on cheating on doing something the "right" way that they'd enjoy themselves even more.

 

Digital_ Cowboy

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...