Jump to content

A sad development...


Followers 3

Recommended Posts

When in China this last summer, we managed to bag a cache, which was a virtual but the only one within tens if not hundreds of miles in Xi'an.

 

Sadly, the cache owner hadn't logged in for a while, and over the holidays it looks like two or three German cachers got carried away with themselves finding virtuals and Earthcaches in several countries in the same day (magic carpet???) and now as a result, this cache has bitten the dust! :laughing:

 

Sad that the errant ways of a few have led to the demise of this cache which we really enjoyed.

 

Looks like they have even been to the UK and back today!

Edited by Dorsetgal & GeoDog
Link to comment

When in China this last summer, we managed to bag a cache, which was a virtual but the only one within tens if not hundreds of miles in Xi'an.

 

Sadly, the cache owner hadn't logged in for a while, and over the holidays it looks like two or three German cachers got carried away with themselves finding virtuals and Earthcaches in several countries in the same day (magic carpet???) and now as a result, this cache has bitten the dust! :laughing:

 

Sad that the errant ways of a few have led to the demise of this cache which we really enjoyed.

 

Looks like they have even been to the UK and back today!

Strictly, of course, the archiving was within the rules er guidelines, but surely TPTB should be going after the errant loggers? But maybe they are.

Link to comment

Armchair cachers are a pain for virtual owners and I've been through a particularly difficult phase with them over the last few weeks. Most appear to be German (perhaps it's relatively easy to spot the German armchair cachers; I have questioned a few genuine German cachers as a result).

 

I've become ruthless in deleting false logs (sometimes upsetting genuine cachers), and also deleting genuine logs which include the answer or a spoiler photo. However, with 13 virtuals (and 5 Earthcaches) this is becoming a pain.

 

If it gets any worse then my next step will be a mandatory photo of the location with GPS in hand - more difficult for the cacher but perhaps necessary to save them from being archived.

 

Off topic, my virtual in Washington DC has received 1791 finds. That's a lot of email replies.

Link to comment

Armchair cachers are a pain for virtual owners and I've been through a particularly difficult phase with them over the last few weeks. Most appear to be German (perhaps it's relatively easy to spot the German armchair cachers; I have questioned a few genuine German cachers as a result).

 

I've become ruthless in deleting false logs (sometimes upsetting genuine cachers), and also deleting genuine logs which include the answer or a spoiler photo. However, with 13 virtuals (and 5 Earthcaches) this is becoming a pain.

 

If it gets any worse then my next step will be a mandatory photo of the location with GPS in hand - more difficult for the cacher but perhaps necessary to save them from being archived.

 

Off topic, my virtual in Washington DC has received 1791 finds. That's a lot of email replies.

 

I already ask for a photo and the answer to couple of questions with our virtual in Thailand. It's the only way to stop this sort of thing.

Link to comment

When in China this last summer, we managed to bag a cache, which was a virtual but the only one within tens if not hundreds of miles in Xi'an.

 

Sadly, the cache owner hadn't logged in for a while, and over the holidays it looks like two or three German cachers got carried away with themselves finding virtuals and Earthcaches in several countries in the same day (magic carpet???) and now as a result, this cache has bitten the dust! :laughing:

 

Sad that the errant ways of a few have led to the demise of this cache which we really enjoyed.

 

Looks like they have even been to the UK and back today!

The owner of one of the UK caches hit by the german arses is a friend of mine in Texas. I will get her to delte their logs.

Link to comment

If it gets any worse then my next step will be a mandatory photo of the location with GPS in hand - more difficult for the cacher but perhaps necessary to save them from being archived.

 

Not onerous at all for the cacher -- most earthcaches require at least one picture AND some homework. Bit of a burden for the cache owner, but I suppose if you're already grinding through them manually trying to work out if they're for real...

Link to comment

I managed a few virtuals in China and Hong Kong and although I sent emails I think I only had one response back so I'm not sure how much the owners are monitoring them. I also noticed a lot of annoying German virtual loggers but at least one cacher is clamping down.

 

 

My sad little story is here.

 

At least there is now a physical cache within 370ft of my virtual so I was not really too phased about the archivation :D:D - but I was really miffed by the reason for it........ ;):D

Link to comment

This cache in the Netherlands seems to have suffered a similar fate? Or aren't virtuals allowed for Waymarking as well?

 

Noe that really seems sad.

 

I cannot understand why the reviewer called it a locationless cache - the gallery most definitely shows there is a something there. If other cachers had used the location to claim a locationless cache under a previous category is not the owner's fault.

 

IMHO opinion the cache should not have been archived as it was surely grandfathered in - but then I am not sure if I am in possession of all the facts and face it - what do I know anyway ;):D:D

Link to comment

I managed a few virtuals in China and Hong Kong and although I sent emails I think I only had one response back so I'm not sure how much the owners are monitoring them. I also noticed a lot of annoying German virtual loggers but at least one cacher is clamping down.

 

 

Just done the same with ours..........and deleted one of the logs that I hadn't checked properly.

Link to comment

I can't imagine what someone gains from such blatant false logging?

 

The person referred to in the OP has 'found' ~40 virtual caches all over the USA, UK, Hungary, Germany, Canada and China in the last 3 days, whilst also finding physical caches in Germany on all of those days.

 

It just makes him seem like a fraud. Can he have enjoyed not visiting these special places?

Link to comment

I have only had one (that I know of) person do a virtual log of one of my caches and I realised that they hadn't done it so sent them an email and they came back that they done it from home, so I deleted their find.

 

Off topic, my virtual in Washington DC has received 1791 finds. That's a lot of email replies.

 

Don't reply that just makes work for yourself. I have the following statement on all of my virtual and earthcaches and I rarely answer them.

 

As long as you have met the above requirements for your find, I am happy for you to log this cache without a reply from myself. If I have a query with your log I shall get in touch.

 

Knowing that this side of the game can now cause virtuals to be archived I am going to archive my Armchair cache bookmark list, anything to cut down on people who cheat. ;)

Link to comment

I can't imagine what someone gains from such blatant false logging?

 

The person referred to in the OP has 'found' ~40 virtual caches all over the USA, UK, Hungary, Germany, Canada and China in the last 3 days, whilst also finding physical caches in Germany on all of those days.

 

It just makes him seem like a fraud. Can he have enjoyed not visiting these special places?

 

There is a small minority, prevalently German, who seem to take the 'Play it your own way' attitudes of Geocaching to the extreme of not getting off their backsides. It appears that for them, it is 'about the numbers' and the more they can log from countries they've never visited, the better!

 

I first stumbled across this a couple of years ago. I forget which UK cache it was, but I do remember it wasn't even a Virtual, but a German had logged it. I took a look at their profile to see that they had logged a Vitrual in the Bahamas on the same day.

So it's not just Virtual owners who have to beware the Armchair Ger-Cachers!

Link to comment

I've had to delete some dodgy logs on my Greenwich foot tunnel virtual in the past. I didn't check which country the people had come from. Or rather, not come from :D :D

 

Virtuals have a place in caching and while it'll never happen, it would have been good if Groundspeak had built in an automatic checker for logging them. With no way of transferring them, they're an endangered species anyway and armchair logging may yet kill more... ;)

Link to comment

they're an endangered species anyway and armchair logging may yet kill more... :D

 

Maybe that was the intention. ;)

 

However I am more concerned about the virtuals, such as the one in Xi'an where there is no physical cache for miles ... I am not certain, but I seem to recall when I checked in advance of our trip, the next nearest cache was 400 miles away :D

Link to comment

There are a couple of dozen virtuals, most of them in Germany, which were designed from day one to be logged remotely. (These are just one of many reasons why virtuals went away, because they were not "scalable".) These caches are grandfathered as long as the owners maintain the checks of the logging requirements. Perhaps it's as a result of these that some cachers (many, but not all of whom, are based in Germany) have got the idea that it's OK to log virtuals if you can get hold of the solution by fair means or foul, or even just claim to have been there and hope that the cache owner isn't checking. I think there might also be some who genuinely think that the "find" can be just as virtual as the cache...

 

Deleting bogus logs is one of the cache owner's responsibilites, so if they aren't doing that, the cache is not being maintained. Even virtuals require maintenance - a fact which would have surprised the placers of the dozen or so virtuals which I didn't publish this summer in France, if I hadn't not published them for the main reason that we don't publish them any more :) as most of them said "we've decided to make this a virtual so we don't have to maintain it".

 

it would have been good if Groundspeak had built in an automatic checker for logging them

I doubt if this would help much. I believe that the "right answers" for a large number of virtuals are circulating on the Web. :rolleyes:

 

As for "disciplinary measures": I'm not sure that bogus logging is a major ToU violation. Groundspeak has always treated the "policing" of logs as (mostly) a community issue, probably for reasons of time as much as anything else. People in the US have been known to log the same event 30 or more times to "compensate" for the 30 temporary event caches which they "weren't allowed" to log (because they weren't listed on the site). You could argue - I certainly do sometimes - that this devalues the smiley, but Groundspeak has never made a big deal of it. If someone in Germany gets his find count up from 90 to 100 with 10 fake virtuals, it doesn't affect me at all. If someone turns up at an event bragging that he's hit 100 and the others present look up his profile to find 60 virtuals, 35 event attended logs on one event, and 5 finds on 1/1 trads, he's going to get laughed at.

Link to comment

I agree with pretty much all that you say riviouveur ... however, the hard fact remains because of the antics of a few Germans, many visitors to northern Central China will not now be able to log a cache at all. As one of the genuine visitors to that cache, I feel this is a loss to the community as a whole.

 

The Germans can log what they like so long as it doesn't affect potentially everyone else, but in this case it has :rolleyes:

 

I would have been first in the queue had it been possible to adopt the Anyuan Gate cache and indeed, normally there is a warning log isn't there, to give the owner the chance to pull their socks up?

Link to comment
I would have been first in the queue had it been possible to adopt the Anyuan Gate cache and indeed, normally there is a warning log isn't there, to give the owner the chance to pull their socks up?

I imagine that the cache owner was contacted first, to see if they were still active, perhaps by e-mail. But if someone hasn't logged in for almost a year, realistically, they have walked away from the game. It would be nice if virtuals could be adopted but... :)

 

Hopefully Geocaching will take off at some point in China. Assuming it's legal to own a GPSr there, that is. :rolleyes:

Link to comment

 

Hopefully Geocaching will take off at some point in China. Assuming it's legal to own a GPSr there, that is. :)

 

I certainly hope so! We tried jolly hard to convert our driver, guide and interpreter! LOL

 

Ironic really as so much geocaching paraphernalia comes from China!

 

I didn't have any problems entering / leaving / wandering about in China with GPSr in hand ... and believe me, life being as it is, I attracted more military and police attention than the usual traveller! :rolleyes:

 

Even managed to muster ourselves a police escort on one occasion!

Link to comment
it would have been good if Groundspeak had built in an automatic checker for logging them
I doubt if this would help much. I believe that the "right answers" for a large number of virtuals are circulating on the Web. :rolleyes:
It is how WayPointMarkFinding (or whatever it's called :) ) works, and if it's good enough for that Groundspeak site/project...
Link to comment

So why does Groundspeak not close the accounts of these individuals who travel the world faster than Santa?

Why? I wouldn't do it but it's only a minor irritation at worst and doesn't affect anyone. It hardly warrants such drastic action.

 

I'm sure that plenty of "bogus" logging would be found in Waymarking if anyone were to check, but AFAIK no-one does and in my opinion that's good and healthy. If people "cheat" they're only cheating themselves, so leave them to it.

Link to comment

however, the hard fact remains because of the antics of a few Germans, many visitors to northern Central China will not now be able to log a cache at all. As one of the genuine visitors to that cache, I feel this is a loss to the community as a whole.

 

The Germans can log what they like so long as it doesn't affect potentially everyone else, but in this case it has :rolleyes:

Not true: according to the note the reviewer closed the cache due to neglect by the cache owner. As a virtual, it couldn't have been adopted.

Link to comment

Not sure what you mean.

 

In this case, a Colorado-based cacher appears to have set a virtual in China; I think with the cooperation of a local after visiting the area. After some caching in 2004, and a little in 2006, the cacher seems to have become inactive. After March 2008 they didn't sign on to geocaching.com at all. Also, at some point the cache description had been changed so that you are allowed to just log it without the need for verification.

 

Somehow, a reviewer became aware of the situation and invoked the "neglect" clause. So the cache was archived. He also commented that some logs appear to be false. As far as I can see, the Germans are irrelevant.

 

A cache doesn't get archived because it has been logged in "bogus" fashion. That happens all the time on some caches.

Link to comment

 

Somehow, a reviewer became aware of the situation and invoked the "neglect" clause. So the cache was archived. He also commented that some logs appear to be false. As far as I can see, the Germans are irrelevant.

 

A cache doesn't get archived because it has been logged in "bogus" fashion. That happens all the time on some caches.

That;s where we'll have to agree to disagree HH.

 

If the Germans had not logged goodness knows how many virtuals all over the world in the space of a couple of days, nobody would have been any the wiser, even the reviewers (unless they were patrolling virtuals for neglect, which over the Christmas season I doubt).

 

So I place responsibility fairly and squarely with the jerks Germans. :D

Link to comment

I think 'these Germans' would be better than 'the Germans'. But not as good as 'Zee Germans', of course :D

Whatever the rights and wrongs of this, the nationality of the villains isn't reinvent; anyone can armchair log, and the actions of a few individuals shouldn't be allowed to reflect on a whole race.

 

HH has a point- it was the neglect which got the cache killed, but as DG says, it's quite possible the powers that be wouldn't have noticed the cache if it hadn't been for some high-profile shenanigans. It's a shame, but what can you do? :D

Link to comment

OK, don't mention the war!!! :D

 

Didn't we have some idiot a few years ago (may have been 2005), think he called himself the "Virtual Cacher" , who logged FTFs in Libya, London and the USA on the same day? He then splattered logs all over the UK caches, which when plotted on a map, looked "rude".

 

Don't remember the exact details, but we all agreed "muppet", DELETE logs :D:D

 

Nick

Link to comment

That;s where we'll have to agree to disagree HH.

 

If the Germans had not logged goodness knows how many virtuals all over the world in the space of a couple of days, nobody would have been any the wiser, even the reviewers (unless they were patrolling virtuals for neglect, which over the Christmas season I doubt).

 

So I place responsibility fairly and squarely with the jerks Germans. :D

OK, I'll agree to disagree. :D

But I believe that the reviewer could have turned a blind eye to the cache neglect, Germans or not.

 

At the end of the day, when all is said and done (pick whichever trite and hackneyed phrase you prefer), this virtual is remarkable only for being a logging opportunity in a cache desert. I suspect that caching tourists will have other opportunities to get "China" on their list of Countries Cached In.

 

Otherwise it's a chance to set up a waymark to point out the interesting feature formerly used by this virtual: there are a couple of waymarks nearby already. Or, make friends with a local and get a cache hidden!

Link to comment

I think 'these Germans' would be better than 'the Germans'. But not as good as 'Zee Germans', of course :D

Whatever the rights and wrongs of this, the nationality of the villains isn't reinvent; anyone can armchair log, and the actions of a few individuals shouldn't be allowed to reflect on a whole race.

 

 

I dont think anyone, except you maybe ( :D ) was thinking this refers to the entire German nation!!

 

It merely refers to the three German male (!!) cachers who logged all the virtuals in this instance and there have been other references to the fact that some German cachers think nothing of armchair finds and taking this practice to the extreme!

 

Heck, I didn't even mention the war! :D:D:D

Link to comment

...Strictly, of course, the archiving was within the rules er guidelines, but surely TPTB should be going after the errant loggers? But maybe they are.

Strictly speaking it's yet another case of punishing the innocent. The cache owner clearly didn't falsly log the cache and while I respect that particular reviewer I don't see that they banned the errant finders accounts so much as banish the caches they logged. Seems backwards.

 

Besides it's the cache owners sole discression if a log is legit or not. The site has never claimed to make that distinction, and because of those two how can they actually punish an owner for not doing their job?

Link to comment

Presumed neglect. Caches only need help if there is a cache problem. A presumed fake log isn't a cache problem. It would seem far easier if they had solid evidence of the fake log to just delete the fake log and not the real cache.

No "presumed neglect" about it. :D

The case is cut and dried, m'lud. The relevant evidence is in the esteemed Erik's archive log, and I quote;

 

December 29 by erik88l-r (2326 found)

Cache owner has not logged onto the site in ten months, ...

 

And he is careful to refer to defendant to the relevant case law guideline;

 

Virtual Cache and Webcam Cache Maintenance Guidelines

The cache owner will assume all responsibility for their cache listings.

 

Although the cache is not something you physically maintain, you must maintain your cache's web page and respond to inquiries. In the case of Virtual Caches and Webcam Caches you must periodically check the physical location. You may temporarily disable your cache to let others know not to hunt for it until you have a chance to fix the problem. This feature is to allow you a reasonable time – normally a few weeks – in which to arrange a visit to your cache.

 

You should also return to the Geocaching.com web site at least once a month to show you are still active. Caches posted and "abandoned" may be archived by the site.

The owner will assume the responsibility of quality control of logged "finds" for the cache, and will agree to delete any "find" logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements.

 

In the event that a cache is not being properly maintained, or has been temporarily disabled for an extended period of time, we may archive the listing. Grandfathered caches may not be unarchived.

Note the section that I emboldened. The case is open and shut. :D

I will admit that it may have been a bogus logging exercise that alerted the reviewer, but this is not the crime that attracts the mandatory sentence.

Edited by Happy Humphrey
Link to comment

Presumed neglect. Caches only need help if there is a cache problem. A presumed fake log isn't a cache problem. It would seem far easier if they had solid evidence of the fake log to just delete the fake log and not the real cache.

No "presumed neglect" about it. :D

The case is cut and dried, m'lud. The relevant evidence is in the esteemed Erik's archive log, and I quote;

 

December 29 by erik88l-r (2326 found)

Cache owner has not logged onto the site in ten months, ...

 

And he is careful to refer to defendant to the relevant case law guideline;

 

Virtual Cache and Webcam Cache Maintenance Guidelines

The cache owner will assume all responsibility for their cache listings.

 

Although the cache is not something you physically maintain, you must maintain your cache's web page and respond to inquiries. In the case of Virtual Caches and Webcam Caches you must periodically check the physical location. You may temporarily disable your cache to let others know not to hunt for it until you have a chance to fix the problem. This feature is to allow you a reasonable time – normally a few weeks – in which to arrange a visit to your cache.

 

You should also return to the Geocaching.com web site at least once a month to show you are still active. Caches posted and "abandoned" may be archived by the site.

The owner will assume the responsibility of quality control of logged "finds" for the cache, and will agree to delete any "find" logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements.

 

In the event that a cache is not being properly maintained, or has been temporarily disabled for an extended period of time, we may archive the listing. Grandfathered caches may not be unarchived.

Note the section that I emboldened. The case is open and shut. :D

I will admit that it may have been a bogus logging exercise that alerted the reviewer, but this is not the crime that attracts the mandatory sentence.

 

There is a disconnect between "should log in" and maintaining a cache. The two are different things. Then you have the assumption that the lack of logging in means abandoned. Of course Groundspeak added the weasel words just so they could archive caches based on the 'logging in requirement' (assuming 'should means required or we will archive all your caches for you). Besides it's a few logs that may be the problem, not the cache, not the listing, not the owner.

 

Open and shut? Not really. All over but the crying? Yup.

Link to comment
Of course Groundspeak added the weasel words just so they could archive caches based on the 'logging in requirement'

Yeah, that's it. Groundspeak lackeys sit around all day discussing the exact form of words which they can use to hoodwink site members into not noticing that virtuals are to be archived by any means possible. The slight flaw in this argument is that they could have archived all of the virtual and webcam caches at the same time as locationless caches went, but for some reason they chose not to do so. Once again, Groundspeak's plans for world domination are thwarted by their own tendency to be moderate. Drat and double-drat!

 

Most people who are actively maintaining their caches, log in fairly often to the site. If a cache owner hasn't logged in for almost a year then that's a pretty good case for thinking that they might no longer be active in the game. But guess what? We do some more digging before we decide!

 

About one month ago I had a case somewhat similar to the one under discussion. I contacted the owner - who hadn't logged in for over six months - through her profile, and she replied very quickly to assure me that although she hadn't logged in for some time, firstly she hoped to find time to do so in the near future, and secondly she was reading all of the e-mail copies of the logs on her caches. Problem solved, nothing archived. At no point did the Evil Corporate Machine tell me that "if they haven't logged in for a few months, we have a perfect excuse to archive their caches and the forum people are all so dumb that they will readily believe our cover story, bwahahahaha".

 

I would bet a substantial part of my reviewer's salary for a month that Erik similarly tried to contact the cache owner in this case. Of course, the fact that he didn't mention this explicitly in his note could lead some people to suspect that he, too, is part of the conspiracy (and anyway, everyone knows that there are only two reviewers, Erik and mtn-man, and the rest of us are just their sock puppets).

Link to comment
Of course Groundspeak added the weasel words just so they could archive caches based on the 'logging in requirement'

Yeah, that's it. Groundspeak lackeys sit around all day discussing the exact form of words which they can use to hoodwink site members into not noticing that virtuals are to be archived by any means possible. The slight flaw in this argument is that they could have archived all of the virtual and webcam caches at the same time as locationless caches went, but for some reason they chose not to do so. Once again, Groundspeak's plans for world domination are thwarted by their own tendency to be moderate. Drat and double-drat!...

 

 

;)

 

I saw that!

 

You slipped in the first thwart of the new year!

 

MrsB ;)

Link to comment

Yeah, that's it. Groundspeak lackeys sit around all day discussing the exact form of words which they can use to hoodwink site members into not noticing that virtuals are to be archived by any means possible. The slight flaw in this argument is that they could have archived all of the virtual and webcam caches at the same time as locationless caches went, but for some reason they chose not to do so. Once again, Groundspeak's plans for world domination are thwarted by their own tendency to be moderate. Drat and double-drat!

 

The long, slow, painful attrition of virtual caches in the absence of new ones is a community sore point that isn't the least soothed by a liberal application of sarcasm.

Link to comment

...About one month ago I had a case somewhat similar to the one under discussion. I contacted the owner - who hadn't logged in for over six months - through her profile, and she replied very quickly...

 

Thank you very much for reinforcing my point that logging in has nothing whatsoever to do with your ability to monitor and maintain your caches.

 

The rest of your post just tells me that either you don't understand the purpose of weasel words, or that you do, but choose less than earnest about it.

Link to comment

 

I would bet a substantial part of my reviewer's salary for a month that Erik similarly tried to contact the cache owner in this case.

 

That I doubt, or that the cache owner was given a reasonable time to respond.

 

Look at the timescale between the German loggers (there you go I mentioned the Germans again ;) ) and the archiving AND locking of the cache page.

 

Most living souls know there has been a major festival on the calendar in recent days, and one could reasonably expect to wait until the festivities are over before worrying that someone has not replies. That was not there case here.

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...
Followers 3
×
×
  • Create New...