Jump to content

107 finds, 2 days, around the world!


EraSeek

Recommended Posts

I dont see why it would bother someone...

Then you have a lot to learn about integrity...

I wonder why you question the integrity of people who are not troubled by these actions. ChannelFadge didn't create any bogus logs. He didn't disparage anyone or anyone's ideas. He merely gave his opinion.

 

Surely, you allow for people to disagree with you without questioning their integrity, don't you?

Link to comment

I wonder if anyone has ever suggested validation codes for caches? A code that you'd have to collect out of the cache and enter on the webpage or else you aren't allowed to log?

That would spoil geocaching for me far quicker than any number of fake logs.

 

Yes, it has been suggested and was fairly common with micros long ago. I think the practice became verboten once a logbook became a requirement.

Edited by Dinoprophet
Link to comment
KBI,

 

Come on now don't you know "Knowscad" is the All knowing, All seeing Forum NAZI in these here parts, anyone elses opinions and or views are secondary to his he has ULTIMATE POWER !!

 

ScubaSonic

What a ridiculous comment. :)

Agreed. I would come up with some other descriptions for it, but I don't want to get banned. :)

 

I concur, though I agree with the sentiments and I would add the word "again" between your word "banned." and the smiley.

 

:lol:

 

Not only does the person who typed that comment deserve at least a month or two forum ban, the worst part of it all is they are unfamiliar with Godwin's Law. :lol:

Link to comment
Lies hurt us all, as does apathy against dishonesty. I don't care if it is politics, finance, or geocaching. I know.. you really don't care about apathy, right?

If lies hurt us all, then what does challenging someone else's right to their opinion do?

So, you are saying that lies don't hurt us?

I am not saying anything. I am asking you a question.

Ditto. I asked you a question first.

 

 

On an aside, why does it seem to me as though you are taking the adversarial stance toward almost every thread these days? I don't remember you always taking that route. Maybe my generalization is all wrong, and you really do disagree in all of these situations, but I need to let you know that is the way I'm seeing it.

It is all part of the dumbing down of geocaching. :) I have used that phrase before. In the earlier years of GC, it probably didn't cross the minds of most if not all cachers to perform stunts like this. There were a few hoaksters and people called them on it. Fake logging is harmfull (for me) because it just cheapens the activity that I enjoy. The same as shotgunning micros for the sole purpose of raising the smiley count, but that is another topic.

 

Well actually, it was just before my time, but I'm sure I've seen forum threads from 2002 where the long-time #1 cacher in the world (still #2 I believe) was armchair logging virtuals. But I basically agree with your sentiments, especially those about how cheating cheapens the activity.

 

This is probably just someone messing around, and a moot point, I might add. Groundspeak has shown the precedent that they will take action in these cases. Most famous was the Oculus Prime incident. That account once had about 2,000 phony finds all over the U.S., and the Frog wiped them out in one fell swoop. But I'm sure that won't stop the defenders of everything from, um, defending everything. :lol:

Link to comment
Well actually, it was just before my time, but I'm sure I've seen forum threads from 2002 where the long-time #1 cacher in the world (still #2 I believe) was armchair logging virtuals. But I basically agree with your sentiments, especially those about how cheating cheapens the activity. ...
I don't think that MrGigabyte was ever #1 or #2. Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
Well actually, it was just before my time, but I'm sure I've seen forum threads from 2002 where the long-time #1 cacher in the world (still #2 I believe) was armchair logging virtuals. But I basically agree with your sentiments, especially those about how cheating cheapens the activity. ...
I don't think that MrGigabyte was ever #1 or #2.

 

Never heard of him. But judging by his picture in his profile, he seems rather well-connected in the Geocaching world. :) Actually, I was wrong, it appears that very recently there is a new #2 numbers cacher in the world. And they didn't join until 2004, amazing.

Link to comment

I didn't see this question answered on the first page and I wasn't going to wade through the rest....

 

I wonder if anyone has ever suggested validation codes for caches? A code that you'd have to collect out of the cache and enter on the webpage or else you aren't allowed to log?

 

Terracaching.com has that feature and about roughly a million less caches than this listing service. :)

 

I am a member there, but it has been years since I bothered hunting a terracache. I do maintain my locationless terracaches. LC's are one thing TC has going for them.

Link to comment

I think it is wrong but that is just me. But maybe this is someone creating a puzzle? And if they are they should have gotten permission from the Cache owners to do this. Or it could be an angry cacher who had been banned by GC because why is this person mostly going for caches by owners who are still active instead of going for ones who aren't? Inactive cachers can't delete the logs. Seems like a statement to me. And even though this cacher knows he/she has been made they are still listing finds. I saw two new ones posted today though they still say yesterday. Down to 87

Edited by jellis
Link to comment

I dont see why it would bother someone...

Then you have a lot to learn about integrity...

 

Unless you work directly for the frog, geocaching is supposed to be fun. I think... :lol:

 

Integrity is a personal thing. Why oh why would you worry about, let bother you (or try to police) someone else's in the geocaching context? Herding cats would be less stressful me thinks. :)

 

integrity.jpg

 

HerdingCats.JPG

Link to comment
Hey, you asked. :)

And you did not answer.

 

I asked you for an example of a cache logging practice you deem unacceptable.

 

You claimed that you were not accepting "anything and everything" in cache logging practices. I asked you for an example of something you would not find acceptable. You avoided the question. Please answer it.

Link to comment

I wonder if anyone has ever suggested validation codes for caches? A code that you'd have to collect out of the cache and enter on the webpage or else you aren't allowed to log?

That would spoil geocaching for me far quicker than any number of fake logs.

 

Yes, it has been suggested and was fairly common with micros long ago. I think the practice became verboten once a logbook became a requirement.

 

Totally agree. I love paperless caching and having to keep a notepad with a codeword for each cache I find would be a serious drag. I could add them to the fieldnotes, but anyone who uses a Colorado knows it's not exactly efficient at adding notes.

Link to comment

Don't you guys know that that's really Santa Claus? He can travel around the world in one night, it's just taking him a little time to log all the caches!

I agree! Santa is active this time of year he might be trying to get a little caching in between business!!! LMAO-ROTF :):lol::lol:

Edited by lavender5215
Link to comment

Oh, wait a minute here! The "Rock In" Down The Highway Earthcache took us two days, and 396 miles of driving! (Including getting stuck on a dirt road in the Pine Barrens!)

 

 

Thanks Harry

 

I was waiting for an email from him before I deleted his log, So far no email and I want to reassure everyone that I have standards for my caches so his log has now been deleted from Rockin Down the Highway Earthcache, I doubt I will hear from him. I was giving him the benefit of the doubt hoping he really did this one just had not made contact with me with the particulars for my Earthcache.

 

I really do not care how he plays but you have to experience my caches to log them, especially my Earthcaches as it took a lot of time to set them up and working with geoware to get them approved by the Geelogic people.

Link to comment

Not pointing at anyone or any one post in general, but the personal stuff needs to stop please.

 

Here are some things to keep in mind when posting:

 

1. Forum courtesy: Please treat Groundspeak, its employees, volunteers, fellow community members, and guests on these boards with courtesy and respect. Whether a community member has one post or 5,000 posts, they should be treated fairly.

 

3. Personal attacks and inflammatory behavior will not be tolerated. If you want to praise or criticize, give examples as to why it is good or bad. General attacks on a person or idea will not be tolerated.

Link to comment

I deleted a log yesterday and sent an e-mail. The cache was just re-logged.

How to win friends and influence people? That's at least two bogus logs on caches maintained by moderators. And then have the chutzpah to relog them???

I suppose Groundspeak's take on it is that banning the account would simply cause this (ahem!) individual to open a new account?
Link to comment

Another possibility is that there is a robot logging caches at random. Some of the robots filling in text boxes are pretty sophisticated and coud easily be just trudging through the GS database logging finds on caches at random (or relative randomness).

 

They need to reprogram the robots so their logs say more than just 'l'. At least the robot could come up with a nice random log that at least looks legit!

Link to comment

I have a theory about this. I believe it is somebody (heck, could be TPTB) doing an experiment to determine the probability of bogus logs getting deleted. It could maybe have something to do with someone trying to make a point about armchair caching.

 

I'd sure like to see the IP address of this logger...

Link to comment

I deleted a log yesterday and sent an e-mail. The cache was just re-logged.

How to win friends and influence people? That's at least two bogus logs on caches maintained by moderators. And then have the chutzpah to relog them???

I suppose Groundspeak's take on it is that banning the account would simply cause this (ahem!) individual to open a new account?

I'm surprised that it has been permitted to continue as long as it has. I suspect that there have been several COs e-mailing GC to make the relogging stop.

Link to comment

Another possibility is that there is a robot logging caches at random. Some of the robots filling in text boxes are pretty sophisticated and coud easily be just trudging through the GS database logging finds on caches at random (or relative randomness).

 

They need to reprogram the robots so their logs say more than just 'l'. At least the robot could come up with a nice random log that at least looks legit!

 

You're assuming there's some attempt to look legit here.

 

I suspect it someone working out scripts to do this with some future, non-apparent intent, i.e. spaming caches with ads or uploading pr0n in image files, something along those lines.

 

Please note there are several caches which have been inactive for some considerable amount of time - which tells me the person behind this is spidering find logs of other cachers.

Link to comment

I guess this is a good time to point out that in the digital world, you shouldn't anger the geeks. In the virtual world, the geeks can defend themselves and attack when aggrivated.

 

It's entirely plausible that this is a small test for something bigger to come. I sure hope not though because a decent hacker could pretty much confuse the GS servers for quite a while. I don't know what the background resources are but, in most cases, there usually isn't enough background resources to fend off a large attack. Reviewers can only do so much.

Link to comment

Don't you guys see? You got DARPA's attention as an advanced social network that was able to locate 8 red balloons scattered across the CONUS in less that a day with advanced warning and knowledge.

 

So they atempt to see how long it takes to identify a a global pattern without any advanced warning and mobilize. Less than 3 days. Not bad... Not bad...

 

Actually one of the things I considered was exactly that, but my sources say his login is on the raunchy side so his character is bleeding through and makes the idea of a social experiment doubtful.

Link to comment
I guess this is a good time to point out that in the digital world, you shouldn't anger the geeks. In the virtual world, the geeks can defend themselves and attack when aggrivated.

 

 

Yeah, ditto with those cache maggots, huh? Be nice to them, or they'll only attack you harder. I know you don't feel that way about cache maggots, so why feel that way about smilie maggots?

 

It's entirely plausible that this is a small test for something bigger to come. I sure hope not though because a decent hacker could pretty much confuse the GS servers for quite a while. I don't know what the background resources are but, in most cases, there usually isn't enough background resources to fend off a large attack. Reviewers can only do so much.

While I'm an IT guy, this is not my forte by any stretch. But can someone with real working knowledge of such things speak up about the odds of this being a robot, and moreover, about the difficulty of blocking such a robot? I personally don't believe for one second that its anybody but a human at the keyboard, but for the sake of argument and edification...
Link to comment
Lies hurt us all, as does apathy against dishonesty. I don't care if it is politics, finance, or geocaching. I know.. you really don't care about apathy, right?

If lies hurt us all, then what does challenging someone else's right to their opinion do?

So, you are saying that lies don't hurt us?

I am not saying anything. I am asking you a question.

Ditto. I asked you a question first.

Why should I bother answering when all it might get me is another invitation to shut up and leave the thread because I dared to disagree with you?

Now that a little time has passed, that was nowhere even close to what I intended, or even close to what I said. With that note, let it be known that I have no desire to debate the point with you. End of topic as far as I'm concerned.
Link to comment
I guess this is a good time to point out that in the digital world, you shouldn't anger the geeks. In the virtual world, the geeks can defend themselves and attack when aggrivated.

 

 

Yeah, ditto with those cache maggots, huh? Be nice to them, or they'll only attack you harder. I know you don't feel that way about cache maggots, so why feel that way about smilie maggots?

 

Cache maggots cause REAL damage to REAL caches.

 

Smilie maggots aren't much more than gnats. Sure they "can" be a pain but in reality the only harm they do is annoy people.

 

The only "damage" smilie maggots cause is actually caused by an overreaction to their little brand of jerkiness.

 

As for the bot thing. Yes, bots do EXACTLY what is being done. They find an input box and input something in it. Then they find another input box. They can ride on the tails of a webcrawler similar to the ones Google, Yahoo, and BING use to create search databases. The major difference is they are designed to seek a special code on a webpage and act on that code.

 

CAPCHA was designed to battle such bots.

Link to comment

I am surprise that TPTB have not banned this account yet. They have done this in the past. Of course the bogus logger can create a new account but eventually he would get tired. In fact even if he isn't banned one would assume that he will get tired doing this (unless this is a robot doing the logging).

 

As far supposed don't care. I see no one condoning this kind of logging. In fact everyone seem to agree that cache owners whose caches have had bogus logs posted can delete his logs. I read the guidelines as saying that cache owners are in fact directed to delete these logs. There is a question as to whether any physical cache would be archived if the owner failed to delete the log however.

 

What people are debating is

  1. what effect do bogus logs like this have on the game
  2. what should Groundspeak do to stop this person

1. For the most part these logs have little effect on the play of the game. Those getting bent out of sorts that it is happening should instead be going out and finding caches and having fun. That is what most people are doing. They are blissfully unaware that someone is logging bogus log or at least find that this has no effect on them. Sure if you are a cache owner whose cache has been logged you might need to take the time to delete the log - or if you want to make sure the log is bogus first, visit your cache and check the log. If you are a cacher who has been watching one of the these caches waiting to see if someone finds it, and you are unaware that there is a serial bogus logger active, you might run out to look for a cache that isn't there. If I were waiting to see if someone found a cache, I probably wouldn't run out to look after someone posted a Found It note that said "n", but if you do, and want to blame it on a bogus log, feel free.

 

2. Groundspeak can do little more than ban this guy's account. I suppose they could delete his logs but the better approach would be to leave it up to the cache owners to check physical logs and delete any online logs that appear bogus. This is not the first time we have had a bogus logger and it will not be the last. I suspect that some do it just to see how much attention they can get. Personally, I would ban discussion about this in the forums just to deny the guy the opportunity to get attention. But I suppose that the forums is one way to let cache owners know to be on the lookout for fake logs.

 

bittsen mentioned CAPTCHA and I suppose that a CAPTCHA could be added to the log page to prevent BOTs from logging caches. However, I can imagine the outcry if they were do so. I recall that they did have a CAPTCHA for something for a short time (I can't remember what it was exactly) and that it was removed because of all the complaints.

 

I would not want to see verification codes or other mechanism used to "verify" finds beyond the signature in the physical log (and I would not like to see the physical log used as anything except a verification method in the few cases that come along where it appears someone is logging bogus finds). Geocaching is based on an honor system. Cache finders on their honor to log only caches they legitimately find and cache owners are on their honor to maintain the quality control of postings to their cache page. This system has worked for nearly 10 years and does not need to change. Given all the geocachers and misplaced belief of many that the find count has some special meaning that it doesn't actually have, it's a wonder that we have so few serial bogus loggers. Sure from time to time someone will log a find on cache that others among us would never claim as find, but there have been very few examples of people just sitting at their computer logging caches they had never visited (other than armchair virtual caching which many felt was a legitimate alternative game until TPTB posted recently their tirade against coach potato logs). To me the find count of other caches has only a minor entertainment value - like the horoscope print in the daily newspaper. If someone want to sit at a desk and log "Found It" logs on caches that he never visited, if anything, it adds to my entertainment when I look a his count. Much more fun than trying to guess the find count of the people who want to hide theirs.

Link to comment

For the record, because I know someone will might misconstrue things, I am NOT advocating the incorporation of CAPCHA. I think it's a royal pain to use and there is NO WAY it would work alongside phone apps (and if it did there would be some yahoo that would figure out the loophole and bypass it).

Link to comment
2. Groundspeak can do little more than ban this guy's account.

<pedantic>

Groundspeak can do a great deal more than banning the account,

</pedantic>

and I am presuming they have not done so yet for good reasons. I would trust that Groundspeak has this issue well in hand. They are quite competent!

 

These logs are, for now, a nuisance and don't affect the game too much for most of us, but, like spam, they pose the threat of becoming a real problem. My guess is that Groundspeak is developing an effective response to prevent this from becoming a more serious issue.

Link to comment

Cache maggots cause REAL damage to REAL caches.

Smilie maggots aren't much more than gnats. Sure they "can" be a pain but in reality the only harm they do is annoy people.

The only "damage" smilie maggots cause is actually caused by an overreaction to their little brand of jerkiness.

As for the bot thing. Yes, bots do EXACTLY what is being done. They find an input box and input something in it. Then they find another input box. They can ride on the tails of a webcrawler similar to the ones Google, Yahoo, and BING use to create search databases. The major difference is they are designed to seek a special code on a webpage and act on that code.

CAPCHA was designed to battle such bots.

 

 

It was you that said, "I guess this is a good time to point out that in the digital world, you shouldn't anger the geeks." That's what I was referring to when I compared them to what you fondly refer to as "cache maggots". You were apparently referring to the digital damage those geeks could do.

 

 

I am aware of CAPCHA and its variations, as well as its weakneses. However, I do not believe this is anybody but a human being sitting at a keyboard logging caches. Why, I don't know, and that is the ultimate mystery. But nobody sat down at the keyboard and wrote a robot to log only 100 or so caches in three days. Why hasn't it logged 10,000 finds by now?

Link to comment
For the record, because I know someone will might misconstrue things, I am NOT advocating the incorporation of CAPCHA. I think it's a royal pain to use and there is NO WAY it would work alongside phone apps (and if it did there would be some yahoo that would figure out the loophole and bypass it).

In case you were referring to me, it didn't occur to me for one second that you might be advocating that. Even if someone did for one second think that you might be advocating that, what on earth would make that person think for one nanosecond that Groundspeak might be listening?

Edited by knowschad
Link to comment

I wonder if anyone has ever suggested validation codes for caches? A code that you'd have to collect out of the cache and enter on the webpage or else you aren't allowed to log?

 

Yeah, thank goodness they have this for trackables or otherwise this guy could really mess things up.

Link to comment

I wonder if anyone has ever suggested validation codes for caches? A code that you'd have to collect out of the cache and enter on the webpage or else you aren't allowed to log?

 

Yeah, thank goodness they have this for trackables or otherwise this guy could really mess things up.

 

I've been to events where people pass around sheets of paper with tracking numbers for geocoins on them. No reason to believe that something like this wouldn't happen with caches if they had codes.

Link to comment

I have a theory about this. I believe it is somebody (heck, could be TPTB) doing an experiment to determine the probability of bogus logs getting deleted. It could maybe have something to do with someone trying to make a point about armchair caching.

 

I'd sure like to see the IP address of this logger...

 

great minds think alike (see post #88) :)

Link to comment

I think you cachers should be thankful that he is not shotgunning lampost micros en masse, or hiding caches with the coords 80 feet off, leaving firearms, whiskey, tobacco and porn in caches, hiding fake caches and posting that they are there, burying caches under train tracks, placing a members only travel bug prison on an island somewhere, hiding caches in chinese food take out containers, nailing caches to trees, drilling holes in telephone poles, hiding caches on feral mailboxes, logging with copy and paste logs, attempting to use the cache page to force an agenda such as "Nuke the gay whales for Jesus" campaign, hiding nanos under the unknown category, stealing caches and posting them on e-bay, leaving doot in caches, trading down with broken McCrap, not hiding caches back properly, logging with a team name of members that were never there, going for a FTF in a park illegally at night and posting about it, getting stuck in a baseball field in a chevy corsica and making the local front page news, placing ammo boxes under highway bridges and then complaining about it not being listed while the bomb squad attacks it with a water cannon, bumping old threads... :lol::)

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...