Preventing someone from logging without finding a cache

[ssgeo83]

To prevent someone from logging their find without finding the cache, geocaching.com should generate a code for the person hiding the cache. The hider can place a label on the container or write the code on the log located inside the cache. When the finder goes to log a find on geocaching.com, he/she enters the code and then log the find.

Edited August 29, 2008 by ssgeo83

[+LewisClan77]

Yeah, that sounds good, but what about when I go find 70 caches in a day? Then I have 70 codes to write down and try to remember which cache they are for.

[+ChileHead]

It's not that big a problem to worry about.

[ssgeo83]

Yeah, that sounds good, but what about when I go find 70 caches in a day? Then I have 70 codes to write down and try to remember which cache they are for.

 

70 caches a day? Forget my code idea then. I didn't know someone can find that many caches in a day.

[+BlueDeuce]

Maybe the finder should be required leave something behind, nothing big, just maybe sign a logbook or something. Then the cache owner could verify the find.

Edited August 29, 2008 by BlueDeuce

[Dinoprophet]

Phony loggers continue to sit in their chairs at home. The rest of us are forced to start remembering codes if we want to continue playing.

 

All this idea does is punish the honest people.

[ssgeo83]

Phony loggers continue to sit in their chairs at home. The rest of us are forced to start remembering codes if we want to continue playing.

 

All this idea does is punish the honest people.

 

Geocaching.com should add a "delete log" button for hiders.

[+BlueDeuce]

Phony loggers continue to sit in their chairs at home. The rest of us are forced to start remembering codes if we want to continue playing.

 

All this idea does is punish the honest people.

 

Geocaching.com should add a "delete log" button for hiders.

 

You're right, they should. After the owner verifies the logbook wasn't signed.

 

or something.

[+BlueDeuce]

I don't know, maybe it's me but I thought we had this all worked out.

[Skippermark]

Geocaching.com should add a "delete log" button for hiders.

There is, but it's something I rarely use. It's not worth the stress. I'd rather be out finding caches rather than trying to match signatures up to logs on the website.

 

In addition, the name in the log may not match what's online, which can get confusing. I don't have any nanos hidden, but if we're with other cachers and find one, we'll just sign with the first letter of our caching name as a courtesy to the nano owner and not fill up half the log sheet. BCMSST 8/8/8 takes up a lot less space than bubba42e, Cropalt, Mr_CacheHound, Skippermark, Skippermatt, Tuckerman6288 08/08/08.

 

The whole geocaching system is based on trust, and Im going to trust them. If someone logs a find without really finding it, they're only cheating themselves.

[Skippermark]

Ahhh, BlueDeuce, your new icon is creepy.

[+Sagefox]

Ahhh, BlueDeuce, your new icon is creepy.

 

Yes!!! Because it's not blue!

[+Sagefox]

To prevent someone from logging their find without finding the cache, geocaching.com should generate a code for the person hiding the cache. The hider can place a label on the container or write the code on the log located inside the cache. When the finder goes to log a find on geocaching.com, he/she enters the code and then log the find.

 

Do you find that this is a problem that need some action?

 

I haven't been able to detect false logging over the years on our 100+ caches. There could be a couple in there but every logbook I compared to the web page logs matched up o.k.

[+Prime Suspect]

To prevent someone from logging their find without finding the cache, geocaching.com should generate a code for the person hiding the cache. The hider can place a label on the container or write the code on the log located inside the cache. When the finder goes to log a find on geocaching.com, he/she enters the code and then log the find.

No thanks. Your finds are your own, so if someone cheats, they're just cheating themselves. It affects no one else and nothing else.

[+briansnat]

To prevent someone from logging their find without finding the cache, geocaching.com should generate a code for the person hiding the cache. The hider can place a label on the container or write the code on the log located inside the cache. When the finder goes to log a find on geocaching.com, he/she enters the code and then log the find.

 

What happens when they start sharing codes amongst each other?

[stryder717]

or........everyone could start playing fair.

[+chaddyboy_2000]

I personally couldn't care less if people want to log stuff that they didn't find. It really doesn't affect my enjoyment of the hobby at all since it's all about the thrill of the hunt for me. I really don't get caught up in the numbers.

[ao318]

I haven't hid that many caches yet but I don't go out and verify if someone actually found it. If someone wants to log a find without actually going there than fine, I don't care. If they do that than they are missing out on the fun of walking along the American River here in Sacramento and seeing the animals, birds, trees, etc. Let those that want to log a find do it, it's not about the numbers to me. For me it's about getting out with my kids and my geo golden retriever and having a nice afternoon together or sometimes just some me time by myself when I get off of work in the morning before I go home.

 

I personally don't like the short "found it, thanks." postings. I like to read what people have to say about their day, how hard or easy the find was, if their were problems, and things like that. I occasionally check my caches to make sure they are intact, clean, in the correct location, and if the log is ok. I read the names but I do not compare the names. That just takes too much time. In fact I have seen names on my logs that haven't posted finds on GC.com. My concern would be that if I start to remove a log or post notes back and forth this individual might become vindictive and actually visit my cache and destroy it. I also don't want to waste my time and energy in constantly deleting posts, sending emails, and arguing back and forth with notes. I don't know, that's just me.

[+Kare429]

Maybe the finder should be required leave something behind, nothing big, just maybe sign a logbook or something. Then the cache owner could verify the find.

 

Maybe like a drop of blood for a DNA check! But then who has to pay for the labwork?

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

I don't know, maybe it's me but I thought we had this all worked out.

Zackly!

[+Clarkbowman]

Maybe the finder should be required leave something behind, nothing big, just maybe sign a logbook or something. Then the cache owner could verify the find.

 

Maybe like a drop of blood for a DNA check! But then who has to pay for the labwork?

 

I think along with this we should have everyone fingerprinted, passports, drivers license, SS#, liability insurance and life insurance. The last part is to cover some one having a heart attack over false logs. OH your favorite college football team is all so needed.

[+Proud Soccer Mom]

Check your logbook routinely and delete any internet logs that don't match the logbook.

 

Some cachers do put in a code that requires emailing to the owner to keep their internet log.

 

Perhaps cache hiders should be required to place barcodes on their caches that can only be readable with scanners that must be purchased (and would eventually be integrated features into handheld GPSrs). The cacher can then enter their log (or edit it after they get home) but it's automatically logged into the online system. That way there's no BYOP, no wet logs, nothing. It's all digital.

 

- Elle

[+chuckwagon101]

Yeah, that sounds good, but what about when I go find 70 caches in a day? Then I have 70 codes to write down and try to remember which cache they are for.

 

70 caches a day? Forget my code idea then. I didn't know someone can find that many caches in a day.

 

Aintcha never heard of "Armchair 101"? Why, me and my trusty old Lazy Boy FOUR position, with extra neck support and LUMBAR padding have sent many a scalawag cache to the happy hunting grounds!

 

70 caches in a day??? PSHawwwwh! I have hit mor'n that before my second cup of Java! If I'm REALLY in an ornery mood, I can slap leather and get over a hunnert afore lunch time! Smokin' man....SMOKIN'!!!!

 

Now, show a little respect for your fastdraw elders!!

[rogheff]

To prevent someone from logging their find without finding the cache, geocaching.com should generate a code for the person hiding the cache. The hider can place a label on the container or write the code on the log located inside the cache. When the finder goes to log a find on geocaching.com, he/she enters the code and then log the find.

 

That's an option at Terracaching. If Groundspeak were to copy it....well, then we'd be Terracaching.

 

If you like the idea, go there. If you don't like the idea, then stay here.

[+chuckwagon101]

To prevent someone from logging their find without finding the cache, geocaching.com should generate a code for the person hiding the cache. The hider can place a label on the container or write the code on the log located inside the cache. When the finder goes to log a find on geocaching.com, he/she enters the code and then log the find.

 

What happens when they start sharing codes amongst each other?

 

Would me and my armchair buddies do THAT!!!?? Hmmmmmm?

REALLY now! There has to be some honor among........among.......CONTENDER wannabees!!

[+chuckwagon101]

Maybe the finder should be required leave something behind, nothing big, just maybe sign a logbook or something. Then the cache owner could verify the find.

 

LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! Good one Blue!! LOL!

[+briansnat]

To prevent someone from logging their find without finding the cache, geocaching.com should generate a code for the person hiding the cache. The hider can place a label on the container or write the code on the log located inside the cache. When the finder goes to log a find on geocaching.com, he/she enters the code and then log the find.

 

That's an option at Terracaching. If Groundspeak were to copy it....well, then we'd be Terracaching.

 

If you like the idea, go there. If you don't like the idea, then stay here.

 

It's actually an option here as well. There is nothing keeping a cache owner from requiring a code be sent.

It's just a form of ALR.

[+baloo&bd]

It's not that big a problem to worry about.

 

Aside from what ChilleHead stated, you would start to get "number" parties and lists where the numbers are simply passed around like some do for travel bugs and coins now.

[+StarBrand]

I wonder if it is too early to grab the domain www.share-cache-codes.com ???

[+Team Woodward]

If all people can do is fill their lives with empty accomplishments that is their problem. I compete within no one but myself in Geocaching so I personally don't give a rat's behind about false logging. It does make me doubt a lot of the numbers I see people putting up though. Especially those that all at once explode on the scene with hundreds & thousands of finds.

[+baloo&bd]

If all people can do is fill their lives with empty accomplishments that is their problem.

 

As an owner, it becomes our problem, since we agree to monitor and delete bogus logs and finds when we hide our caches.

[+markandsandy]

Maybe the finder should be required leave something behind, nothing big, just maybe sign a logbook or something. Then the cache owner could verify the find.

 

I'm going to put a card reader on mine, have the finder swipe their ATM card, and email me their PIN. Once I have emptied their bank account verify they match, I'll let them log online.

[Skippermark]

Attention cachers!

Want to find some of the world's greatest caches from the comfort of your living room sofa? Tired of finding 3 or 4 caches a day and watching others zoom ahead as they find 20 or more each time they head out.

 

I have a verified list of cache codes that is guaranteed to get you 90 finds rated 3/3 or higher. Included is an assortment of caches but mainly those "hard to find" types, including mind numbing puzzles, long, hard multis and crazy under water SCUBA caches.

 

This is legit. You have nothing to lose. Email now. Bidding starts at $4.95. Credit card payment accepted.

 

But wait, I'm also including my bonus list of 20 not yet found caches. That's right. 20 FTFs waiting to be found. This alone is a $6.95 value, but I'm including it free for the winner.

 

Don't delay. Contact me NOW!

 

Edit to adjust difficulty/terrain rating. I wouldn't want to be accused of offering something misleading.

Edited August 29, 2008 by Skippermark

[+chuckwagon101]

Attention cachers!

Want to find some of the world's greatest caches from the comfort of your living room sofa? Tired of finding 3 or 4 caches a day and watching others zoom ahead as they find 20 or more each time they head out.

 

I have a verified list of cache codes that is guaranteed to get you 90 finds rated 3/3 or higher. Included is an assortment of caches but mainly those "hard to find" types, including mind numbing puzzles, long, hard multis and crazy under water SCUBA caches.

 

This is legit. You have nothing to lose. Email now. Bidding starts at $4.95. Credit card payment accepted.

 

But wait, I'm also including my bonus list of 20 not yet found caches. That's right. 20 FTFs waiting to be found. This alone is a $6.95 value, but I'm including it free for the winner.

 

Don't delay. Contact me NOW!

 

Edit to adjust difficulty/terrain rating. I wouldn't want to be accused of offering something misleading.

 

Dooyahh take PayPal??? I would like to get on the list for sure! I am tired of working my buns off for a few hundred caches when I could be a ........................CONTENDER!

 

Thank you for making this available!

[+Droo]

To prevent someone from logging their find without finding the cache, geocaching.com should generate a code for the person hiding the cache. The hider can place a label on the container or write the code on the log located inside the cache. When the finder goes to log a find on geocaching.com, he/she enters the code and then log the find.

 

As everyone has already said it hardly matters if someone claims to have found the cache but hasn't really done so. Big deal.

But if someone logs a find when they meant to log a DNF, ie their Found It log states they couldn't find it, I send them a note gently pointing out their error. If they choose to alter the log type is really up to them. My caches aren't 2 second park n grabs so they are missing out if they don't give themselves the option to try again to find 'em. The reward is in the finding not in the claim to have found, IMO.

[Skippermark]

Dooyahh take PayPal??? I would like to get on the list for sure! I am tired of working my buns off for a few hundred caches when I could be a ........................CONTENDER!

 

Thank you for making this available!

Absolutely! I take all forms of payment. I am also willing to barter cache codes for cache codes. Thank you for supporting this. I feel that I am doing a great community service.

[+Morgan's Marauders]

Phony loggers continue to sit in their chairs at home. The rest of us are forced to start remembering codes if we want to continue playing.

 

All this idea does is punish the honest people.

 

Geocaching.com should add a "delete log" button for hiders.

 

You're right, they should. After the owner verifies the logbook wasn't signed.

 

or something.

 

Wow!! You guys are really smart!! Are you, like, Approvers or something? You should tell Jeremy!

[+geogold]

No matter how hard you police your caches, there will be people that will log them online without ever finding it or at least signing the log. It is the nature of the beast. But there are some caches that I have placed that are harder caches to do and I state right on the cache page that just seeing the cache does not constitute a find, you must sign the log. Logged finds online that arent backed up with a sig on the cache log will be deleted. That is truely the only fair way to do it. Putting codes on caches only puts more work on Groundspeak, as well as the cachers finding the cache. That way you really only have to police the caches that really matter. I myself don't bother with checking all of my 1/1 caches as it would be a waste of time. But the ones where you have to climb a tree or climb a cliff to get to the cache, or hike in a mile or so into the woods to find it get policed as often as I am in the area where the cache is. Then I know if I need to do any deleting or not. With the new caches that are out called Fizzy challenges, people tend to log a find on a cache that they need for the fizzy. That is why only the harder caches really need policing. And in the end, it's only a game, there will always be cheaters.

[+CCrew]

Putting codes on caches only puts more work on Groundspeak

 

Naa, you just generate the code the same way the GC # is generated. Nothing but a brief exercise in programming.

 

That said, I have no issue with codes on a difficult cache, like one of Vinny's 5/5's just as an example. It's the 1/1 LPC that makes the code thing more trouble than it's worth. System now works - I see no reason to change it. Change it and it'll just spawn a whole new round of problems and issues I'm sure

 

-R

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

Putting codes on caches only puts more work on Groundspeak

 

Naa, you just generate the code the same way the GC # is generated. Nothing but a brief exercise in programming.

 

That said, I have no issue with codes on a difficult cache, like one of Vinny's 5/5's just as an example. It's the 1/1 LPC that makes the code thing more trouble than it's worth. System now works - I see no reason to change it. Change it and it'll just spawn a whole new round of problems and issues I'm sure

 

-R

Well said! I do have the requirement on several of my 5/5 Psycho caches that any finder must not only sign the logbook, but must also send me the code recorded in the cache container and on the front page of the logbook, but, from the viewpoints of both hiders and finders, this would not be practical, in terms of effort and time, for the average run-of-the-mill cache. And, as others have pointed out, if this method were to be widely instituted for many caches, what would prevent unethical cachers from sharing the code with each other, allowing armchair finds? In fact, it is well-known that numerous geocoin and travel bug enthusiasts do something similar to this all the time: they will distribute a list of tracking numbers to their geo friends via email and at events, allowing their buddies to lay claim to finds or grabs or similar interactions with the trackable, even though the persons in question have never even seen the trackable.

[+baloo&bd]

But there are some caches that I have placed that are harder caches to do and I state right on the cache page that just seeing the cache does not constitute a find, you must sign the log.

 

That's every cache, why list it?

[TimeKiller]

70 caches in a day? No way. Where is the fun in that? I like to see the areas I am visiting, of course with all the crappy park and go micro's now adays I guess you can do it.

[+Parabola]

Well said! I do have the requirement on several of my 5/5 Psycho caches that any finder must not only sign the logbook, but must also send me the code recorded in the cache container and on the front page of the logbook, but, from the viewpoints of both hiders and finders, this would not be practical, in terms of effort and time, for the average run-of-the-mill cache. And, as others have pointed out, if this method were to be widely instituted for many caches, what would prevent unethical cachers from sharing the code with each other, allowing armchair finds? In fact, it is well-known that numerous geocoin and travel bug enthusiasts do something similar to this all the time: they will distribute a list of tracking numbers to their geo friends via email and at events, allowing their buddies to lay claim to finds or grabs or similar interactions with the trackable, even though the persons in question have never even seen the trackable.

 

Vinny how did you get them to let you have that as a requirment??

 

I tried that on one a while back and I was told no and that would be consider "virtual" and had to let go of the code idea in the cache. I begged as there was still a logbook to sign but in the end gave up on the idea.

 

 

But I found that it's effective to make sure every few weeks to go and check out my log books and make sure there's a sig in there. If not, I will delete the find. I don't do this to be a jerk but I've found my fair share of caches and now with running with a Colorado and have the info right there I get a little testy when I find it and go to sign it and see it really hasen't been found by the last couple of "finders". But then have to remember this is just a game and it will cause more grief on me if I say anything.

[+GeoHowerz]

Im just surprised there is not a site called www.ArmChairCaching.com. AFter fake logging they might go to some ACC Events. Everyone sitting in their arm chairs eatting lunchj and sharing stories about how they fake logged.

[+Prime Suspect]

I tried that on one a while back and I was told no and that would be consider "virtual" and had to let go of the code idea in the cache. I begged as there was still a logbook to sign but in the end gave up on the idea.

Did you make it clear to the reviewer that there was a log book? If so, you should have had the request escalated to higher powers. You can have additional verification, but it's an ALR, and the cache must be typed accordingly.

[+Parabola]

I tried that on one a while back and I was told no and that would be consider "virtual" and had to let go of the code idea in the cache. I begged as there was still a logbook to sign but in the end gave up on the idea.

Did you make it clear to the reviewer that there was a log book? If so, you should have had the request escalated to higher powers. You can have additional verification, but it's an ALR, and the cache must be typed accordingly.

 

Yeah, I said there was a logbook as well as this code but I though it wasn't worth barking over so I just let it go. I think our reviewer in our area does a bang up job and really didn't want to stir the pot over something so little. I mean after all I just need to check the logbooks and make sure. Really I think the code would have been shared anyways and the effort for it would have been pointless. So I just took that part off of the write up and didn't go any further with it. I really didn't want to make more work for our reviewer. After all again I think he does a great job and putting up with us I'm sure is a difficult enough task.

 

I wonder though if it was a ALR and I didn't list it as a mystery cache. From what I've read in the past 6 months anything with a ALR has to be listed as a mystery cache. Which it wasn't.

 

But I figure it was small potato's and wasn't too upset to drop the idea. I figured in the end it wasn't that big of a deal.

[+Parabola]

Im just surprised there is not a site called www.ArmChairCaching.com. AFter fake logging they might go to some ACC Events. Everyone sitting in their arm chairs eatting lunchj and sharing stories about how they fake logged.

 

OMG.....Can you imange the events???

 

Sign into a chat room and it's event time!!!!

[+fizzymagic]

I played around once with the idea of making a puzzle cache that everyone would have to solve for themselves. How could I prevent cachers from using their friends' solution for the coordinates and logging the find?

 

I came up with an interesting solution using cryptography, embodied in this cache. It doesn't prevent cheating, but it does make it possible for everyone to see if somebody else cheated. So far, it has worked quite well, but I just couldn't bring myself to care enough about the "problem" to use it on any other caches.

[Dj Storm]

I played around once with the idea of making a puzzle cache that everyone would have to solve for themselves. How could I prevent cachers from using their friends' solution for the coordinates and logging the find?

 

I came up with an interesting solution using cryptography, embodied in this cache. It doesn't prevent cheating, but it does make it possible for everyone to see if somebody else cheated. So far, it has worked quite well, but I just couldn't bring myself to care enough about the "problem" to use it on any other caches.

 

Very interesting idea, perfectly done!

 

I thought, too, about creating a puzzle that should be solved by everyone before logging, but my approach was somewhat different (and more complicated): An ammo box with an internal electronic lock; a small lcd that shows the encrypted key; The key should be decrypted on site using an algorithm specified on the cache page; input the decrypted key using some buttons; once successfully inputed, the box unlocks, and a new encrypted key is loaded (the box is preloaded with 100-1000 encrypted keys, of which I keep a copy); when logging online, the cachers are required to write also the decrypted key.

 

Using this method, I also know how many times was the box successfully opened. The drawback is the $$$ needed to create such a box, and after it the maintenance (replacing the battery, keeping the moisture out of the electronics, repairing the damage done by someone with a crowbar, etc).

 

The web-based puzzle that gives the coordinates is a better method. (I might use something like this for some puzzle caches).

 

And to brag a little, my token is: 2KWaqV9q9oPW+xAjWu6n/gbE+bc6QviF

I won't seek your cache, because I'm on the other side of the planet, but the puzzle was fun to solve!

[+Echo 5 Hotel]

Fake loggers, I think you will always have your 10% that will scam. It always amazes me that you can have a person brag about how many finds they have, and not feel guilty that its all a lie. I just could not live with myself.