Jump to content

Bogus Virtual Cache Finds


Thrak

Recommended Posts

Don't get all bent out of shape over it. Let the cache owners delete his logs.

 

I'm not really all bent out of shape. I'm just always kind of boggled that folks would do things of this sort. Yes, I know that there are all kinds of people out there and some of them are, ummmm, "special" in the way they view things. :o We've all run across bogus logs but this is sooooo blatant. I guess it must satisfy some bizarre need on the guy's part. My numbers are mine and his numbers are his. I just like the geocaching part and don't feel the need to buff up the numbers that don't really matter to others. If he wants more "finds" then it doesn't really hurt me or affect me in any way. I just pointed it out because I thought it was pretty crazy.

Link to comment

Just a random check on these logs - Many are logged on virtuals that have inactive owners. Some of the virtuals have no logging requirement. These logs are all in one day and all over the world.

 

But they mean nothing to me, other than the fact the virtuals might be archived because they have bogus logs. Then there go some more caches no longer available for the rest of us.

Link to comment

At least all his logs are not the same.

 

Barely but still, why go through that much effort?

 

Seriously. Why?

 

There is a distinct absence of "Greetings From Germany" in the logs. But his 50 or so traditional cache finds are all in Germany. Apparently the word got out to some people in Germany, but not him yet. :o I'm sure the guy has no clue this is frowned upon, especially mostly officially now per the Miss Jenn thread of a couple of months ago.

Link to comment

At least all his logs are not the same.

 

Barely but still, why go through that much effort?

 

Seriously. Why?

 

There is a distinct absence of "Greetings From Germany" in the logs. But his 50 or so traditional cache finds are all in Germany. Apparently the word got out to some people in Germany, but not him yet. :o I'm sure the guy has no clue this is frowned upon, especially mostly officially now per the Miss Jenn thread of a couple of months ago.

 

I still have to wonder what the attraction is. Are people getting prizes for this carp?

Link to comment

maybe he just got off of a road trip and is now logging them all?

 

I'm sure this is the case sometimes, but I doubt it is with this one.

 

To put things in perspective:

 

I've been caching since spring of 2002, so I've cached during a time when virtuals were more prevelant. I've found close to 1300 caches. Since I've started caching, I've cached in 25 U.S. States (plus D.C.), 4 Canadian Provinces, in a total of 6 countries (including U.S. and Canada.

 

But even with all that, I've only found just over 100 caches. So 300 virtuals in just a few days (or years) would take a lot of doing. :o

Link to comment

maybe he just got off of a road trip and is now logging them all?

 

I'm sure this is the case sometimes, but I doubt it is with this one.

 

To put things in perspective:

 

I've been caching since spring of 2002, so I've cached during a time when virtuals were more prevelant. I've found close to 1300 caches. Since I've started caching, I've cached in 25 U.S. States (plus D.C.), 4 Canadian Provinces, in a total of 6 countries (including U.S. and Canada.

 

But even with all that, I've only found just over 100 caches. So 300 virtuals in just a few days (or years) would take a lot of doing. ;)

 

Ahhhh.. 1300 caches since spring 2002? That's hardly effort. :anicute: Who are you to judge?

Link to comment

maybe he just got off of a road trip and is now logging them all?

 

I'm sure this is the case sometimes, but I doubt it is with this one.

 

To put things in perspective:

 

I've been caching since spring of 2002, so I've cached during a time when virtuals were more prevelant. I've found close to 1300 caches. Since I've started caching, I've cached in 25 U.S. States (plus D.C.), 4 Canadian Provinces, in a total of 6 countries (including U.S. and Canada.

 

But even with all that, I've only found just over 100 caches. So 300 virtuals in just a few days (or years) would take a lot of doing. :(

 

Ahhhh.. 1300 caches since spring 2002? That's hardly effort. :anicute: Who are you to judge?

 

Yes, a slacker for sure. I believe she means 100 virtual caches since 2002? Well, better get cracking, because here's a new development. The subject of the OP has added 100 virts today. ;)

Link to comment

maybe he just got off of a road trip and is now logging them all?

 

I'm sure this is the case sometimes, but I doubt it is with this one.

 

To put things in perspective:

 

I've been caching since spring of 2002, so I've cached during a time when virtuals were more prevelant. I've found close to 1300 caches. Since I've started caching, I've cached in 25 U.S. States (plus D.C.), 4 Canadian Provinces, in a total of 6 countries (including U.S. and Canada.

 

But even with all that, I've only found just over 100 caches. So 300 virtuals in just a few days (or years) would take a lot of doing. :(

 

Ahhhh.. 1300 caches since spring 2002? That's hardly effort. :anicute: Who are you to judge?

 

Yes, a slacker for sure. I believe she means 100 virtual caches since 2002? Well, better get cracking, because here's a new development. The subject of the OP has added 100 virts today. ;)

 

Almost looks like he's trying to log every Virtual that's listed. Some COs will delete the logs. Some others won't. He/She will end up with a lot of smilies, but IMHO, it's verging on abuse of the geocaching.com site.

Link to comment

This guy http://www.geocaching.com/profile/?guid=c2...29-e3cfff9242f9 has logged nearly 300 Virtual Cache finds in the past few days. They're all over the place and obviously totally bogus "finds". What a crock.......

 

Well, I think you should let the WWFAOTPSOGC (WorldWide Federal Association Of The Professional Sport Of GeoCaching) officials know. They frown upon this sort of thing and if it's proved he has been cheating they will revoke his professional Geocaching License.

 

What I want to know is when are they going to start introducing mandatory drugs testing of professional geocachers? It's just not right that some geocachers will be out there in the fields getting FTFs when we don't know what they might have been injecting in order to boost their performance.

 

:anicute:

Link to comment

This guy http://www.geocaching.com/profile/?guid=c2...29-e3cfff9242f9 has logged nearly 300 Virtual Cache finds in the past few days. They're all over the place and obviously totally bogus "finds". What a crock.......

 

Well, I think you should let the WWFAOTPSOGC (WorldWide Federal Association Of The Professional Sport Of GeoCaching) officials know. They frown upon this sort of thing and if it's proved he has been cheating they will revoke his professional Geocaching License.

 

What I want to know is when are they going to start introducing mandatory drugs testing of professional geocachers? It's just not right that some geocachers will be out there in the fields getting FTFs when we don't know what they might have been injecting in order to boost their performance.

 

:anicute:

That was rather silly. And not in a funny way.

Link to comment

I feel ready sad for this person. What circumstance left them to only log abandoned virtuals and not want to experience the find in person?

 

Ok I'm just throwing this one out there, devils advocate, we don't know who this person is or what their background is. How do we know it's not some guy/girl in a wheelchair who is cut off from a lot of caches so they like to do virtuals as compensation?

 

Does it really bother me? No. What does bother me is the thought that there's people out their snooping my profile ready to report anything I log in the forums, for people to rip apart and frown upon.

 

Seriously, I enjoy checking people's profiles to see their galleries and what they've found, but if I saw something that didn't look right I guess I'd just shrug and roll my eyes. I wouldn't post it here in the forums and go here look at this guy! What's he up to! Just like I wouldn't spy on my neighbour or report people who take photographs in public places.

Link to comment

This guy http://www.geocaching.com/profile/?guid=c2...29-e3cfff9242f9 has logged nearly 300 Virtual Cache finds in the past few days. They're all over the place and obviously totally bogus "finds". What a crock.......

 

Well, I think you should let the WWFAOTPSOGC (WorldWide Federal Association Of The Professional Sport Of GeoCaching) officials know. They frown upon this sort of thing and if it's proved he has been cheating they will revoke his professional Geocaching License.

 

What I want to know is when are they going to start introducing mandatory drugs testing of professional geocachers? It's just not right that some geocachers will be out there in the fields getting FTFs when we don't know what they might have been injecting in order to boost their performance.

 

:anicute:

That was rather silly. And not in a funny way.

 

It made me laugh.

Link to comment

Perhaps Groundspeak should do another round of archiving virtuals, where the owners are long absent? :anicute: Of course this created a bit of angst the first time they did it.

Well crap, why not delete finders who are long absent? It's essentially the same.

 

Virtuals with absentee owners usually have the most fake logs. Since nobody actually verifies the requirements are met, cheaters can log fake finds. This is no different than cache owners being responsible for the logs on physical caches. The only reason there are fake cache finders is due to a lack of oversight by cache owners.

Link to comment

I feel ready sad for this person. What circumstance left them to only log abandoned virtuals and not want to experience the find in person?

 

Ok I'm just throwing this one out there, devils advocate, we don't know who this person is or what their background is. How do we know it's not some guy/girl in a wheelchair who is cut off from a lot of caches so they like to do virtuals as compensation?

 

Does it really bother me? No. What does bother me is the thought that there's people out their snooping my profile ready to report anything I log in the forums, for people to rip apart and frown upon.

 

Seriously, I enjoy checking people's profiles to see their galleries and what they've found, but if I saw something that didn't look right I guess I'd just shrug and roll my eyes. I wouldn't post it here in the forums and go here look at this guy! What's he up to! Just like I wouldn't spy on my neighbour or report people who take photographs in public places.

 

What're you saying, we're all a bunch of Gladys Cravitzes? :anicute:

 

The guy is German. There has been a "problem" for years with cachers in Germany logging armchair virtuals. It seems to me to be pretty much a "monkey see-monkey do" thing, and much of it has been blamed on the language barrier. It all culminated in an official Groundspeak forum posting by Miss Jenn a couple of months ago. outlining Groundspeak's policy on armchair logs.

Link to comment

Perhaps Groundspeak should do another round of archiving virtuals, where the owners are long absent? ;) Of course this created a bit of angst the first time they did it.

Well crap, why not delete finders who are long absent? It's essentially the same.

 

Virtuals with absentee owners usually have the most fake logs. Since nobody actually verifies the requirements are met, cheaters can log fake finds. This is no different than cache owners being responsible for the logs on physical caches. The only reason there are fake cache finders is due to a lack of oversight by cache owners.

Then perhaps TPTB should do like you suggested previously and archive all these abandoned virtuals. Maybe they should thank this guy for doing the leg work of determining which virtuals have absentee owners.

 

You're right there will be angst. No matter what they say, it comes down to TBTB wanting to eventually archive all virtuals on the site. They've stated that owners that allow coach potato logs are essentially failing to maintain their virtuals and that these cache are subject to being archived. So now the people who enjoy virtuals will have a few hundred fewer they can find.

 

My personal opinion is that I don't care if any one wants to couch potato log virtuals. I don't care if some guy in Germany thinks it fun to post finds on virtual caches because he's pretty sure have no one to delete them. The people who enjoy finding virtuals ability to find these is not hurt one bit by this. A cache owner who doesn't respond to a Needs Maintenance (or even a DNF in some cases) that reports that the object you are looking for at the virtual site is no longer there is failing to do maintenance. These caches should be archived. But a a fake log on a virtual that is still there and findable is just a fake log and has no effect.

 

When the adoption rules on physical caches were changed I asked if physical caches would be archived if they did not have a cache owner who could remove a needs maintenance flag. I was told that this would not be the case. If members of the community were maintaining the cache and posted that on the cache page, reviewers would have the ability to clear the needs maintenance. Further discussion disclosed that they might still archive a cache if they felt there were issues that needed an owner to address, but that in practice a cache could continue for also long as it was being maintained even without an owner. Now maintenance of bogus logs seems to be one of those issues that requires an owner. No one dare to suggest that Groundspeak or reviewers delete bogus logs for an absentee owner. Virtual caches are hit particularly hard by this - particularly with the interpretation that couch potato logs are bogus. The rules that are being put in place are clearly marking the end of virtuals. If you enjoy finding virtuals forget about. There are fewer than 200 of you. There are thousands that enjoy Waymarking :anicute:

Link to comment

Perhaps there are fewer than 200 because that is the nember of cachers that live in Vitual-rich locations?

 

TPTB might just chuck the whole lot over something like this and then those of us that only travel to Las Vegas every few years will be without, while the folks in Las Vegas already logged them and could care less.

Link to comment

Perhaps there are fewer than 200 because that is the nember of cachers that live in Vitual-rich locations?

 

TPTB might just chuck the whole lot over something like this and then those of us that only travel to Las Vegas every few years will be without, while the folks in Las Vegas already logged them and could care less.

 

The 200 number is a reference to another hotly debated feature that caused a stir in the forums not too long ago.

Link to comment
if you enjoy finding virtuals forget about. There are fewer than 200 of you. There are thousands that enjoy Waymarking

 

Although I get the point, the two are completely different. As one who loves virtuals (but not Waymarking) I thought this thread was interesting - although the problem is not simply limited to virtuals. Someone went through my area logging physical caches, giving greetings from Germany, but somehow not signing any logs. It's just a game so in the grand scheme of things I probably have other things to worry about. But as our friend in this thread apparently continues to log these caches, does he know so many are taking an interest?

Link to comment

We've noticed the same activity in our area, at an old, archived virtual that we just missed doing by months (great location). Not sure how they even found it, it was archived in '05? GC5E3D. The fellow was also in Hungary, Spain, Wyoming, Kansas, Texas, Utah, Florida and PA on the same day. <_<

Link to comment
if you enjoy finding virtuals forget about. There are fewer than 200 of you. There are thousands that enjoy Waymarking

 

Although I get the point, the two are completely different. As one who loves virtuals (but not Waymarking) I thought this thread was interesting - although the problem is not simply limited to virtuals. Someone went through my area logging physical caches, giving greetings from Germany, but somehow not signing any logs. It's just a game so in the grand scheme of things I probably have other things to worry about. But as our friend in this thread apparently continues to log these caches, does he know so many are taking an interest?

 

No, of course he doesn't know. It's generally all been blamed on the language barrier, and people over there just doing what they see everyone else doing. The word has been put out, best as Groundspeak, Inc. can, but this guy (and many other's I'm sure) just hasn't received the word yet.

 

I don't necessarily agree with this public forum thread on this one particular individual. But it is fun to watch, isn't it? <_<

Link to comment

Must be the third week of the alternate month, since this came up again. (And yeah, I started one of them some time back.)

 

I'm with the Urkel, I suspect that most bogus loggers don't realize they are supposed to physically visit the site of a virtual cache. I don't like hanging out with jerks (such as those who intentionally abuse the system), but misinformed is simply misinformed.

 

The language problem isn't just German vs English. Calling them Virtual caches is a problem just in English. Virtual, in technology, generally refers to "you see it but it isn't really there". This could very easily mean a cache that you only have to visit online.

 

The continued existence of Four Windows doesn't help.

 

Absentee owners, and owners who just don't care, are also problems. I don't object to the ban on new virtuals, but I wish gc.com would allow them to be adopted. Allowing them to continue while prohibiting adoptions results, I think, in a lot of non-maintenance.

 

Edward

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...