Jump to content

Is there cheating in geocaching ?


Followers 7

Recommended Posts

:D

 

Surely not?

 

:unsure:

 

:D

 

 

<MrsB goes away to worry about this possibility>

 

 

 

 

10 minutes later...

 

OK, enought of that.

 

With these sorts of questions people often go away and look up definitions so I've just done that (while watching the London Marathon on TV)...

 

"Noun 1. cheating - a deception for profit to yourself"

 

If someone is perceived as cheating in Geocaching, what profit are they hoping for? Are they likely to receive it?

 

"Adj. 2. cheating - violating accepted standards or rules."

 

This sounds more like it, perhaps? For "accepted standards" read "Guidelines"?

 

If you accept #2 above then, yes, I'm sure there's cheating in Geocaching.

 

MrsB

Edited by The Blorenges
Link to comment

If you mean are there commonly accepted standards or mores that some violate, then yes. Do these actions fit the dictionary definition of cheating? They can.

 

The question is does it matter? Cheating in anything only matters when it affects others. Cheat at solitaire who cares? Cheat at poker and you can be in for a beatin'.

 

In geocaching some cheating can and does affect others, but most of the time it is of no consequence.

 

If you log a find on a cache that wasn't there you can induce others to search for it and waste their time, as well as give the owner the false impression that the cache is OK. If you get the final coords of a multi and shortcut it, then it's only between you, your conscience and perhaps the cache owner if he finds out.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

Depends on how you define cheating.

 

I've been buying finds from briansnat for years. I don't consider that cheating, I'm paying good U.S. currency for those smileys. I can't get him to even negotiate in good faith on selling me US Geocacher of the Year 2003. I think that's a kind of cheat, holding out as he is. Though I guess I could just acknowledge his position as a hard bargainer.

 

On a more serious note, his answer to your question is pretty much "the answer". I'd add that if the final coords to puzzles and multis are shared, and finds are made by those who just go to those endpoints, the cachers who worked them out through their mental or physical efforts are also cheated. Their finds are cheapened.

 

On the other hand, I have no problem with "happy finds" - ie, the guy who stumbled upon stage 5 of my 8 stage 13 mile multi-cache is welcomed to log it. He got lucky. Whoopee!

Link to comment

Cheating on any individual cache can only be defined by what the CO considers cheating. If he or she finds out about it. :unsure:

 

I recently did a multi-cache where I used pure logic to solve the missing numbers in the final coordinates without visiting the first 4 parts of the cache to get the numbers properly. And I told the CO in my on-line log that I did it, but not how I did it.

 

Anyway, he was not real happy and suggested that I voluntarily delete my log. Which I did.

 

But did I really cheat?

Link to comment

Yes.

 

Any violation of (mostly) commonly held standards can easily be defined as cheating. No matter what the activity is. I think most cheating in Geocaching is cheating yourself of the opportunity to have fun, get exercise, learn something new, share with others, visit new places. Claiming to do what you have not done. We do not live in a vacumn - our actions do affect others. If only in some very small way. Even if it is just a demonstration of our actions towards others.

Link to comment

Is there ?

A previous thread you started leads me to believe that you feel the "find count" is a method that can be used to compare two cachers. TeamSeekAndWeShalFind has 603 finds and tozainamboku has 4863 finds so tozainamboku is the better cacher. Use of the find count to compare two cachers is silly. Some cachers will take a very strict interpretation of find and won't log caches unless the found it themselves without getting any help and they wrote their own geocaching name in the log book. Others will allow various execeptions to the strict rule: they are part of group and someone else in the group made the find, they were with the hider, they forgot to sign their name, the log was too wet to sign, some even log when they found where they think the cache should be. Someone once posted a chart with Darth Vader at one end and Yoda at the other and listed where along the spectrum in between they thought various logging practices should be placed. The majority of people who are play are not so concerned with the find count. When you are not concerned with the find count, the view that it is OK to use the 'Found It' log to track the caches you have found according to your own definition of found, is not that hard to accept - even if the definition you use for your own finds is the puritan one.

 

Are there Darth Vaders who simply log 'Found It' on caches they never even attempted to find? In fact there are, but they are relatively few. These people could be called 'cheaters' if you like, but essentially they are bogus or counterfeit loggers. The guidelines ask cache owners to delete these logs and many people do. In addition, people report these serial bogus loggers to Groundspeak and these accounts are routinely banned. There is no massive "cheating" going on and there are sanctions spelled out in the guidelines and terms of use for those that routinely log bogus finds.

Link to comment

Depends on whether your ethics and integrity matches with other cachers.

 

There are plenty of previous threads discussing

 

* Pocket caches

* Retirement cards

* Attending a single event 100 times (so you can get credit for all the non GC approved "temp" caches you found.) This is 10 / 10 on the lame factor for me. :unsure:

* Greetings from Germany logs on Virtuals

* Backdating finds on archived caches where the owner no longer caches.

* Backdating finds on Ape Caches

 

I could go on, but the liberal minded cachers will chime in saying, "it doesn't hurt you, they are having fun, why would you want to hurt their feelings."

Link to comment

Is there ?

 

To misquote a former United States President...

 

It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If 'is' means is and never has been, that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement....Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with that woman while geocaching, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true.

Link to comment

Is there ?

 

To misquote a former United States President...

 

It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If 'is' means is and never has been, that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement....Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with that woman while geocaching, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true.

 

Good one Glenn!

Link to comment

I ran "geocaching" through an anagram generator, and these are the first four results that were returned:

 

Cache Going

Caching Ego

Caging Echo

Gang Choice

 

The answer seems to be no, there is not, because there is no 't' in geocaching, and there /is/ a 't' in cheating. You can get very close to cheating... but not quite!

 

I hope this answers the question.

 

Have a nice day.

 

:)

Link to comment

Cheating?

 

In a game with no way of winning?

In a game with no cash reward?

In a game with no fame?

In a game with no clear goal?

In a game that has no ending?

In a game where people can play the way the want to?

 

Noooooo....nooot at alllll!!!

 

 

For sale:

 

100 acres of prime real estaste

Location: Florida

Price: Real Cheap, willing to negotiate

 

:)

Edited by SkellyCA
Link to comment

I'm surprised at how many honest and decent replies there are in this thread.

I'm tossing the yellow "BS & Troll Alert" flag. Someone please post the chart-I don't have it bookmarked.

 

The OP's been around for almost 2 years, has almost 100 hides and several hundred finds. They know how the game is played and who does what.

 

And yes, there is. In fact I just logged a find one of your caches and I've never even been to Dekalb County IL. :unsure:

Link to comment

Depends on whether your ethics and integrity matches with other cachers.

 

There are plenty of previous threads discussing

 

* Pocket caches

* Retirement cards

* Attending a single event 100 times (so you can get credit for all the non GC approved "temp" caches you found.) This is 10 / 10 on the lame factor for me. :unsure:

* Greetings from Germany logs on Virtuals

* Backdating finds on archived caches where the owner no longer caches.

* Backdating finds on Ape Caches

 

I could go on, but the liberal minded cachers will chime in saying, "it doesn't hurt you, they are having fun, why would you want to hurt their feelings."

What is a "Retirement Card" that you refer to here???

 

Pocket Cache I know...is it similar to that???

Edited by ArcherDragoon
Link to comment

Depends on whether your ethics and integrity matches with other cachers.

 

There are plenty of previous threads discussing

 

* Pocket caches

* Retirement cards

* Attending a single event 100 times (so you can get credit for all the non GC approved "temp" caches you found.) This is 10 / 10 on the lame factor for me. :unsure:

* Greetings from Germany logs on Virtuals

* Backdating finds on archived caches where the owner no longer caches.

* Backdating finds on Ape Caches

 

I could go on, but the liberal minded cachers will chime in saying, "it doesn't hurt you, they are having fun, why would you want to hurt their feelings."

What is a "Retirement Card" that you refer to here???

 

Pocket Cache I know...is it similar to that???

Take it from me: Retirement cards are great! I would say that over 30% of my finds have been "retirement card" finds, dwarfed only by my 140,000 finds/attendeds on ten events (one attended smiley for each microsecond that I was present at the events) and by my backdated "finds" on long-abandoned archived caches around the world whose owners left the sport years ago! About my only finds that have been easier than the above-listed ones have been the finds that I have purchased in bulk lots via Ebay auctions.

 

Life is great, and moral relativism makes it even all the more fun! I am happy! :yikes::D:D

Link to comment

Depends on whether your ethics and integrity matches with other cachers.

 

There are plenty of previous threads discussing

 

* Pocket caches

* Retirement cards

* Attending a single event 100 times (so you can get credit for all the non GC approved "temp" caches you found.) This is 10 / 10 on the lame factor for me. :unsure:

* Greetings from Germany logs on Virtuals

* Backdating finds on archived caches where the owner no longer caches.

* Backdating finds on Ape Caches

 

I could go on, but the liberal minded cachers will chime in saying, "it doesn't hurt you, they are having fun, why would you want to hurt their feelings."

 

So, I pull up to the trailhead, find the cache and see the sticker from the prolific out of town cacher. I then hike a horseshoe shaped trail for about eight miles and get back to the road about a mile north of the first trailhead. The cache here has the sticker as well. No stickers on the twenty something caches in between.

 

When I get online and start logging, I see that they have logged every single cache on the trail. I don't like the word, but I'll use it. Cheater!

 

BTW, using Toz's example, they are about six times the cacher that I am. Heck, they are so good, they can find caches on the trail without even hiking it.

Link to comment
What is a "Retirement Card" that you refer to here???

 

A retirement card is when you archive a cache, then carry the old logbook around and let people log finds on it by signing the logbook. A form of a pocket cache.

 

Tell me you're joking! And people log these "finds"? I don't claim to be a geocaching purest be don't anyone ever offer me to log a "retirement card". I'll laugh right in your face. What a joke.

Link to comment

YES.

I cheat ALL the time!

But, since I am the only one being affected by my cheating, please don't feel bad for yourself, but only pity me since my idea of fun doesn't coincide with yours.

 

Next question please.

 

P.S. The only reason I have only 4K (or so) finds is 'cause I'm a lazy cheater! :anicute:

Edited by AZcachemeister
Link to comment

There is no cheating, only lying. :anicute:

A cacher can create a false impression about the number of finds that they have by logging fake finds, having other team members sign them in, or pretending to solve puzzles that others have fiqured out, and so forth. You can lie all you want, but if no one really cares then you are only fooling yourself. :anicute:

 

However, too much lying can upset the basic communication of the game, and can cause a disturbance depending entirely on the spirit and intentions behind it. Personally, I have over 42 million finds, but am very picky about the very tiny percentage that I log online. :anibad:

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment

Let me see if I can narrow the focus a bit since I kind of know why the OP made the post. In their area, some people are exploiting bugs to be FTF on caches. I think that is the issue that the OP is referring to.

Wow. I never would have been able to glean that from "Is there?" You are the man! But I guess you already know that, with "Man" in your name and all. Thanks for the info.

 

I don't know how to exploit a bug (a flea circus may be a bit exploitative) but I assume anyone can do it. So if anyone can use a TB to find an unpublished cache then I don't consider it cheating.

Link to comment

Well, I know that some sort of loophole was closed as far as being able to see an unpublished cache.

 

I also know of a way to be able to determine coordinates for some multi/puzzle caches.

 

I have used it myself, but I never went after the caches. At least not yet.

 

To me, however you come up with the coordinates is however you come up with the coordinates.

 

I placed a cache recently that was too close to the final of a puzzle I probably would never solve on my own. So, I have approximate coordinates! I am eventually going to go out and look for that cache. And when I find it, I am going to log it. Because I found it!

 

In the end, this is a game. If I am not having fun, then why am I doing it? If it is causing me grief, then out it goes! And that goes double for some puzzle caches!!

Link to comment

Let me see if I can narrow the focus a bit since I kind of know why the OP made the post. In their area, some people are exploiting bugs to be FTF on caches. I think that is the issue that the OP is referring to.

 

Really? I'm from the area and am not aware of any such issue...

 

As like COD, I'm from the area and and am not aware of this issue either.

 

Are there "cheaters" when it comes to FTFs? Sure, I guess that there are. I suspect a couple folks of 'sharing' information prior to publication, but really, does it matter? This is a GAME that has very few rules and none of those rules say anything about 'you can not share information'. If a person wants to play that way, so what.

Link to comment

...

Are there "cheaters" when it comes to FTFs? Sure, I guess that there are. I suspect a couple folks of 'sharing' information prior to publication, but really, does it matter? This is a GAME that has very few rules and none of those rules say anything about 'you can not share information'. If a person wants to play that way, so what.

 

Perhaps someone is referring to this "cheating" thread.

 

I remember reading about recent web site fixes (like Corp Of Discovery) to prevent people from seeing unpublished caches. Perhaps they also feel that the pre-sharing of a milestone cache coordinates prior to publishing with the person who achieved the milestone is "cheating".

Link to comment

So this is really just unresolved angst from a year ago and the OP has been sitting around letting it fester while we are all having fun? :o

 

I seem to have that power over the OP lately that she responds to any thread I post to, so maybe her response to this will get her to explain the question.

 

I live in the area and am relatively active here, one or two of the others who have posted even more so, and even occasionally go to the local forum. Until it was mentioned above and there, I am not certain any of us were aware of some issue with using TB's to find caches, at least in the recent past.

 

The question is probably more related to the group issue, but since she did not post the actual issue, we won't know till she responds to this and states the issue. Going through the forums and visiting other areas, we (in my area) do seem to have an unusually high occurrence of people becoming friends in the area through geocaching and getting together to go out and cache. Also unusual is that there seems to be always a different mix of people doing it. I know there are several individuals I speak to or visit with now that I would not have met were it not for caching.

 

I started to read the linked thread as I had not read it when it was out. Having three boys in college right now, I have seen their views change drastically since they were teenagers. I think something similar will take place here and this perceived "cheating" issue will pass.

Link to comment

About my only finds that have been easier than the above-listed ones have been the finds that I have purchased in bulk lots via Ebay auctions.

 

Speaking of which... I STILL haven't received your check.

 

Did you at least get positive feedback?

 

No... he filed feedback claiming that I obtained those smileys by... get this... cheating!

Link to comment

Cheating on any individual cache can only be defined by what the CO considers cheating. If he or she finds out about it. :laughing:

 

I recently did a multi-cache where I used pure logic to solve the missing numbers in the final coordinates without visiting the first 4 parts of the cache to get the numbers properly. And I told the CO in my on-line log that I did it, but not how I did it.

 

Anyway, he was not real happy and suggested that I voluntarily delete my log. Which I did.

 

But did I really cheat?

 

I would say no. If it was solvable by not having to go to the first four parts, then maybe it just wasn't set up right - I would think extra effort should be made to make sure you can't do it that way. Otherwise, you just figured it out quicker than most - not cheating.

Link to comment

Cheating on any individual cache can only be defined by what the CO considers cheating. If he or she finds out about it. :o

 

I recently did a multi-cache where I used pure logic to solve the missing numbers in the final coordinates without visiting the first 4 parts of the cache to get the numbers properly. And I told the CO in my on-line log that I did it, but not how I did it.

 

Anyway, he was not real happy and suggested that I voluntarily delete my log. Which I did.

 

But did I really cheat?

 

I agree with you that cheating is only as the CO defines it (and how the individual making the find defines it)

 

I found a 5 or 6-stage multi once after only finding the first and second stage. At the first stage, the slips of paper that were in the container listing the coords to stage 2 were all wrong. The person had obviously entered the Lat/Lon into Excel, then just dragged down from the first cell for the degrees. In doing that, each subsequent cell had a number one larger than the previous. I figured this out when I had plugged the numbers in and they put me almost 60 miles north. With that, I was able to locate stage 2. I wrote to the CO about this but they did not correct the issue (6 months later a friend of mine found the same trouble)

 

The same problem was at stage 2, but rather than it being the degrees, it was the minutes that were an issue. This time, in addition to contacting the CO, I went back to the cache page and looked at everything on the page. All the logs, all the pictures etc... What I found were some pictures of each of the cache containers used placed on the page by the CO. Included was a picture of the final container in all its glory with the cache coordinates written in large numbers on the side.

 

Of course with that information I was able to find the cache. The CO was unresponsive both times I contacted them so was this cheating?

Link to comment
I recently did a multi-cache where I used pure logic to solve the missing numbers in the final coordinates without visiting the first 4 parts of the cache to get the numbers properly. And I told the CO in my on-line log that I did it, but not how I did it.

 

Anyway, he was not real happy and suggested that I voluntarily delete my log. Which I did.

 

But did I really cheat?

As both an owner and seeker of caches, if a person is able to find the final stage differently than the owner intended, then the failure is on the owner's part, not the seeker. Finding the cache differently than the owner intended is not cheating. I call such cases in a multi "short cutting." You merely short cut the multi to find the final stage. Nothing wrong with that in my book. On the contrary, I give higher marks to those who are able to find caches differently like this. We've been known to work multis just like you did to skip stages.

 

On the other hand, we've had folks short cut our caches. Instead of whining, we provide kudos and close the hole we've left. We learn from our mistakes and make the next cache better.

 

In my book, you found the cache without cheating and should be able to claim so.

Link to comment
I recently did a multi-cache where I used pure logic to solve the missing numbers in the final coordinates without visiting the first 4 parts of the cache to get the numbers properly. And I told the CO in my on-line log that I did it, but not how I did it.

 

Anyway, he was not real happy and suggested that I voluntarily delete my log. Which I did.

 

But did I really cheat?

As both an owner and seeker of caches, if a person is able to find the final stage differently than the owner intended, then the failure is on the owner's part, not the seeker. Finding the cache differently than the owner intended is not cheating. I call such cases in a multi "short cutting." You merely short cut the multi to find the final stage. Nothing wrong with that in my book. On the contrary, I give higher marks to those who are able to find caches differently like this. We've been known to work multis just like you did to skip stages.

 

On the other hand, we've had folks short cut our caches. Instead of whining, we provide kudos and close the hole we've left. We learn from our mistakes and make the next cache better.

 

In my book, you found the cache without cheating and should be able to claim so.

I completely agree with everything CR posted.

 

Further, I agree that the only thing that I would label 'cheating' is when someone logs a find on a cache that they didn't actually find. However, I would not find this to be cheating in those cases where the cache owner is aware of the circumstances and OKs the smiley.

Link to comment

You show up for a friendly game of golf, and the other guy whips out a hockey stick and starts swinging wildly at the ball, and then claims a better score. I would just smile, have fun anyway, and keep track of my own. :unsure:

 

Unless of course, there was money on the game and some foolish nutcase maintenence man started to blow up the groundhogs under the green.. :(

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment

I once hunted a multi in which the first stage had been reported muggled, but I went after it anyway. Discovered I could find stage two based on the description in the listing, then it was an easy find for the final. Did I cheat? No, I don't think so.

 

I've been tempted at times when I've spent over an hour on a shrub hunt to just go home and log a find. But my inherent honesty won't let me do that. I don't consider it a find until my name is on the log (and I don't care if someone else signs it for me - I usually sign for the group anyway).

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 7
×
×
  • Create New...