New possible Bot alert

[+Bill the Cat 89]

I didn't notice, but were ANY of the NH logs on Premium Caches?

 

All but 1 of mine were logged, and I deleted them as soon as I noticed the pattern.

 

I dont have any Premium hides so I was wondering if ANY were logged?

Just one example of a premium cached logged.Fly Fishing Only

[+Too Tall John]

I didn't notice, but were ANY of the NH logs on Premium Caches?

 

All but 1 of mine were logged, and I deleted them as soon as I noticed the pattern.

 

I dont have any Premium hides so I was wondering if ANY were logged?

Hey Charlie!

 

Yes, it's logged at least one PMOC.

 

It's logged 37 of mine, including some inactive ones.

 

With the apparent increase in bots, perhaps Groundspeak ought to add bulk deleting logs from obvious bots to their list of "We'll only delete logs in the following situations. . ."

Edited October 5, 2010 by Too Tall John

[+Knight2000]

Hey ETLogEater. Nothing is wrong with bots. It was a pun. You didn't find my pun punny enough?

[+t4e]

can a moderator please deal with this looser?

posting notes now with a link to this thread

 

http://www.geocaching.com/profile/?guid=a3...21-ac1e6901c7f9

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

I've been bitten by the logeater. Now I have to eat a bunch of logs, until GS can write a script to autodelete all logs by a username.

 

ETLogEater

[GOF and Bacall]

I didn't notice, but were ANY of the NH logs on Premium Caches?

 

All but 1 of mine were logged, and I deleted them as soon as I noticed the pattern.

 

I dont have any Premium hides so I was wondering if ANY were logged?

Hey Charlie!

 

Yes, it's logged at least one PMOC.

 

He's logged 37 of mine, including some inactive ones.

 

With the apparent increase in bots, perhaps Groundspeak ought to add bulk deleting logs from obvious bots to their list of "We'll only delete logs in the following situations. . ."

 

I vote yes on this one.If they are sure enough that it is a bot that they ban the user they should feel comfortable enough to delete the logs.

[+Knight2000]

Why delete them?

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

So...the dilema is whether deleting the logs will feed the ego? I

ll be deleting them(they are all notes) so that the owner of the bot cannot go back and edit them later, adding something unsavoury. Maybe eventually their email server will lash back at them for all the emails they will be getting from the deleted logs.

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

Why delete them?

So that they are gone, and there cannot be a future bot that autoedits them all to include malicious links, or ads.

[+WeightMan]

I've been bitten by the logeater. Now I have to eat a bunch of logs, until GS can write a script to autodelete all logs by a username.

 

ETLogEater

I just got hit with 13 notes from ETLogEater as well.

 

Edit, make that all 18 of my caches. The last five came after I started looking at my gmail.

Edited October 5, 2010 by WeightMan

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

I feel sorry for players with more Caches than me.

[+Bill the Cat 89]

I've been bitten by the logeater. Now I have to eat a bunch of logs, until GS can write a script to autodelete all logs by a username.

 

ETLogEater

I just got hit with 13 notes from ETLogEater as well.

 

Edit, make that all 18 of my caches. The last five came after I started looking at my gmail.

 

Yep, I just got the notification on my caches. I only have to delete two logs though.

[Skippermark]

can a moderator please deal with this looser?

posting notes now with a link to this thread

 

http://www.geocaching.com/profile/?guid=a3...21-ac1e6901c7f9

Reported.

 

He just hit a bunch of my caches. Hopefully it'll be stopped soon. I don't have that power.

 

Thanks!

Edited October 5, 2010 by Skippermark

[+SwineFlew]

Oh I feel the love from ETLogEater!! He hits a good numbers of my caches with logs linked to this thread! LOL!

 

Delete delete delete!

[+Too Tall John]

Why delete them?

• It might give someone the impression that a cache that isn't actually there is.
  
• In the NH case, the cache logs include a link to an outside site.
  
• Those of us who use PQ's & read the logs loose useful logs due to this guy's fake log.
  
• Cache owners like me need to spend way too much time deleting these fake logs.
  
• According to the guidelines, we are required to "Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit . . . "
  

Is that enough?

 

Edited to add: I just got a notification of a note posted by Mr ET on one of the archived caches in a bookmark of mine. I wondered how they tracked down an archived cache, until I realized they looked at the profile of someone who posted in this thread. Since we know this chucklehead is reading this thread, perhaps we need to get it shut down.

 

So, which of you Nazis is going to invoke Goodwin's Law?

 

Oh, wait. . .

Edited October 5, 2010 by Too Tall John

[+dfx]

i didn't even post in here and still got "chosen". should i feel honored?

 

 

 

...yawn...

[+SwineFlew]

i didn't even post in here and still got "chosen". should i feel honored?

 

 

 

...yawn...

 

Yes u should be.

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

Why delete them?

• It might give someone the impression that a cache that isn't actually there is.
  
• In the NH case, the cache logs include a link to an outside site.
  
• Those of us who use PQ's & read the logs loose useful logs due to this guy's fake log.
  
• Cache owners like me need to spend way too much time deleting these fake logs.
  
• According to the guidelines, we are required to "Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit . . . "
  

Is that enough?

They might write a new bot that edits all their logs and actually includes something malicious. We wouldn't even get notification of the edits, and I should shut up before I dispense any more bright ideas to the bot owner.

[+t4e]

he is proving his low level of intelligence over and over

 

anyone with half a brain would have realized by now that for us deleting 10-20 logs is not even close to the effort he needs to put in to do all the logging, its becoming quite amusing

[knowschad]

Now its ETLogEater posting notes like this one: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LU...4f-e69f02a17acf

 

Still an active account

[knowschad]

Has there been any thought about cleaning up the bogus logs caused by this bot? Or is this gong to be strictly cache owners responsibility? I realize deleting logs with out the cache owners input could be a bit tricky.

We only take action on cache logs in limited situations such as profanity and personal attacks that violate the Terms of Use Agreement. Other than that, taking action on someone's cache page is out of bounds for us. I regret the burden this places on the affected cache owners.

 

I might suggest that Groundspeak think a little further about this current policy.

Fake find logs can affect real cachers.

 

This cache, for example, would previously have appeared to many cachers (especially GSAK users) as questionable and possibly one to avoid wasting time on, based on the string of DNFs without a Find. Now, it shows up as recently found.

I understand your point, kablooey, and suggest you make note of it on the feedback page and/or by writing to contact@geocaching.com

 

Personally, I would prefer to see development resources applied to projects that would positively impact the greater geocaching community, but it's a long way from being my call.

 

Brad,

 

I beg to differ with you. On the surface, what you say sounds good. But as a developer myself, I know that it would take an hour or two to come up with a query that would delete all logs for a given user id. It isn't rocket science.

 

I just had to use my own time to delete 17 bogus cache logs. These were, of course, on caches that I used my own time and money to put out. In addition, the forum timed out as I posted my previous log to this thread while reporting this particular bot, and then it timed out again (and I knew that it would, because it is a long-standing, known problem) when reporting my post to alert Groundspeak.

 

Something seems awfully unbalanced to me about all of this. We didn't create this problem, we should not have to fix it.

[+mountainman38]

can a moderator please deal with this looser?

posting notes now with a link to this thread

 

http://www.geocaching.com/profile/?guid=a3...21-ac1e6901c7f9

Reported.

 

He just hit a bunch of my caches. Hopefully it'll be stopped soon. I don't have that power.

 

Thanks!

 

I feel special -- I just got notes from this bot on all my caches, including an archived one. Hopefully he'll be gone soon...

[+Knight2000]

I'm not going to go and fret about the 40 logs to my caches. I've got better things to worry about. I have no need to delete them either. It seems that might feed the monster. I think it's kind of funny though.

[GOF and Bacall]

Has there been any thought about cleaning up the bogus logs caused by this bot? Or is this gong to be strictly cache owners responsibility? I realize deleting logs with out the cache owners input could be a bit tricky.

We only take action on cache logs in limited situations such as profanity and personal attacks that violate the Terms of Use Agreement. Other than that, taking action on someone's cache page is out of bounds for us. I regret the burden this places on the affected cache owners.

 

I might suggest that Groundspeak think a little further about this current policy.

Fake find logs can affect real cachers.

 

This cache, for example, would previously have appeared to many cachers (especially GSAK users) as questionable and possibly one to avoid wasting time on, based on the string of DNFs without a Find. Now, it shows up as recently found.

I understand your point, kablooey, and suggest you make note of it on the feedback page and/or by writing to contact@geocaching.com

 

Personally, I would prefer to see development resources applied to projects that would positively impact the greater geocaching community, but it's a long way from being my call.

 

Brad,

 

I beg to differ with you. On the surface, what you say sounds good. But as a developer myself, I know that it would take an hour or two to come up with a query that would delete all logs for a given user id. It isn't rocket science.

 

I just had to use my own time to delete 17 bogus cache logs. These were, of course, on caches that I used my own time and money to put out. In addition, the forum timed out as I posted my previous log to this thread while reporting this particular bot, and then it timed out again (and I knew that it would, because it is a long-standing, known problem) when reporting my post to alert Groundspeak.

 

Something seems awfully unbalanced to me about all of this. We didn't create this problem, we should not have to fix it.

 

As a developer how long do you think it would take to modify that query to counter any new bot once you had written it the first time. I can't imagine it would be more than a few minutes any time a new bot is identified.

[knowschad]

I'm not going to go and fret about the 40 logs to my caches. I've got better things to worry about. I have no need to delete them either. It seems that might feed the monster. I think it's kind of funny though.

Funny? As in "ha! ha!" funny?

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

I just had to use my own time to delete 17 bogus cache logs. These were, of course, on caches that I used my own time and money to put out. In addition, the forum timed out as I posted my previous log to this thread while reporting this particular bot, and then it timed out again (and I knew that it would, because it is a long-standing, known problem) when reporting my post to alert Groundspeak.

 

Something seems awfully unbalanced to me about all of this. We didn't create this problem, we should not have to fix it.

ah...But the business model...Each time you clicked a link to a log, GS gets to say to their advertisers that there was another visit to the site.

[GOF and Bacall]

I just had to use my own time to delete 17 bogus cache logs. These were, of course, on caches that I used my own time and money to put out. In addition, the forum timed out as I posted my previous log to this thread while reporting this particular bot, and then it timed out again (and I knew that it would, because it is a long-standing, known problem) when reporting my post to alert Groundspeak.

 

Something seems awfully unbalanced to me about all of this. We didn't create this problem, we should not have to fix it.

ah...But the business model...Each time you clicked a link to a log, GS gets to say to their advertisers that there was another visit to the site.

 

So using that theory they should let the bots run.

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

I just had to use my own time to delete 17 bogus cache logs. These were, of course, on caches that I used my own time and money to put out. In addition, the forum timed out as I posted my previous log to this thread while reporting this particular bot, and then it timed out again (and I knew that it would, because it is a long-standing, known problem) when reporting my post to alert Groundspeak.

 

Something seems awfully unbalanced to me about all of this. We didn't create this problem, we should not have to fix it.

ah...But the business model...Each time you clicked a link to a log, GS gets to say to their advertisers that there was another visit to the site.

 

So using that theory they should let the bots run.

No, I'm just being sarcastic.

[GOF and Bacall]

I just had to use my own time to delete 17 bogus cache logs. These were, of course, on caches that I used my own time and money to put out. In addition, the forum timed out as I posted my previous log to this thread while reporting this particular bot, and then it timed out again (and I knew that it would, because it is a long-standing, known problem) when reporting my post to alert Groundspeak.

 

Something seems awfully unbalanced to me about all of this. We didn't create this problem, we should not have to fix it.

ah...But the business model...Each time you clicked a link to a log, GS gets to say to their advertisers that there was another visit to the site.

 

So using that theory they should let the bots run.

No, I'm just being sarcastic.

 

Sorry. I forgot the smilie. I was playing along.

[+paleolith]

I beg to differ with you. On the surface, what you say sounds good. But as a developer myself, I know that it would take an hour or two to come up with a query that would delete all logs for a given user id. It isn't rocket science.

Using names from the GSAK database,

 

DELETE FROM LOGS WHERE LBY = 'ETLogEater';

 

(Using names from the GSAK database.)

 

I have 59 minutes and 45 seconds left ...

 

Seriously, what would take a bit of time is to implement a throttling algorithm for new, unpaid users, much like the better email services do to minimize spam and spew from their servers.

 

Edward

[knowschad]

I beg to differ with you. On the surface, what you say sounds good. But as a developer myself, I know that it would take an hour or two to come up with a query that would delete all logs for a given user id. It isn't rocket science.

Using names from the GSAK database,

 

DELETE FROM LOGS WHERE LBY = 'ETLogEater';

 

(Using names from the GSAK database.)

 

I have 59 minutes and 45 seconds left ...

 

Seriously, what would take a bit of time is to implement a throttling algorithm for new, unpaid users, much like the better email services do to minimize spam and spew from their servers.

 

Edward

Yup, that's about it. There would probably be a join or two in there, but big deal.

 

I think that we, as cache hiders, have done enough already to help Jeremy and staff make their livings. We shouldn't have to clean up the trash, too. If this were a one-time experience, I wouldn't have a problem, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

[+t4e]

I'm not going to go and fret about the 40 logs to my caches. I've got better things to worry about. I have no need to delete them either. It seems that might feed the monster. I think it's kind of funny though.

 

lucky you, he posted notes twice on your caches

 

you going to wait until he makes 5 and takes over the front page of logs?

[+dfx]

Seriously, what would take a bit of time is to implement a throttling algorithm for new, unpaid users, much like the better email services do to minimize spam and spew from their servers.

there used to be a throttling mechanism on the website. of course all the related threads were in the "geocaching.com website" subforum, which no longer exists, and so i can't give any links to them. anyway, apparently the mechanism was broken and innocent users were getting error messages from it, being asked whether they're human or not. which is probably why it's been removed since then.

 

does anyone else see the irony in that?

[GOF and Bacall]

Seriously, what would take a bit of time is to implement a throttling algorithm for new, unpaid users, much like the better email services do to minimize spam and spew from their servers.

there used to be a throttling mechanism on the website. of course all the related threads were in the "geocaching.com website" subforum, which no longer exists, and so i can't give any links to them. anyway, apparently the mechanism was broken and innocent users were getting error messages from it, being asked whether they're human or not. which is probably why it's been removed since then.

 

does anyone else see the irony in that?

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showforum=8

[+dfx]

ah thx. http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=248486

[Mr.Yuck]

Posted to a bunch of my caches, including archived ones, but only seems to be ones placed after 2006 or so, no "older" ones. Now I don't feel left out. And for the record, I never said there is anything wrong with bots.

[+BoMS]

Besides ETLogEater there is also ForestDefender - see the logs on GC2G2J9.

[+MightOfOaks]

bizarre

Edited October 5, 2010 by MightOfOaks

[+BoMS]

Besides ETLogEater there is also ForestDefender - see the logs on GC2G2J9.

At the time of the above post I believe ForestDefenders' find count was somewhere below 100. Now it's 3423.

 

All logs are:

[Found it] October 4 by ForestDefenders (3489 found)

 

Stop littering and destroying our fragile ecosystems!

(including an external link)

 

And now the found count is 3489....

Edited October 5, 2010 by BoMS

[+Lovejoy and Tinker]

I can see their point on the Earth caches they have posted to. I mean, all those photographs that people take at Earth caches are each taking a little bit of light from those locations and very soon the places will be so dark no one else will ever be able to enjoy them. We are so selfish.

 

On a serious note, GS are going to have to find a way to stop this or it will eventually turn every cache page into nothing but a string of spammed logs and notes with links to porn sites and viagra outlets.

 

I set up a website with a feedback form for people to leave comments. Not being a very clever web bunny I didn't protect it in any way and within 3 days the bots had found it and I had literally hundreds of emails of messages left by automated systems. I took it down.

 

I've only been on the forums a few months, is this a new phenomenon that has just started in the last few weeks, or has it gone on before and run out of steam?

[+NYPaddleCacher]

 

I've only been on the forums a few months, is this a new phenomenon that has just started in the last few weeks, or has it gone on before and run out of steam?

 

I've been on the forums about 3.5 years and this is the first time that I an remember seeing a persistent bot like this. Coincidentally, it falls on the heels of someone getting spanked off the forums and then off Groundspeak entirely. Someone earlier posted that a captcha or some sort of bot blocker needs to be put in place as the site is vulnerable to bots. As far as I can tell, it's been vulnerable to bots for 10 years but only recently has it become an issue.

 

As I wrote earlier, instead of trying to block bots, I'd rather see efforts made to going after whoever is creating them legally. Put them in jail if that's what it takes. Make them an example as a deterrent to anyone else that is considering launching bots against the site.

[+Team Bullis]

However,

 

If I could buy or rent that program he/she has designed so when I do the Vegas power trail some day and need to log 1000 caches, that would be great. Good could come from a bot if used the right way.

 

Randy

[+Lovejoy and Tinker]

I've been on the forums about 3.5 years and this is the first time that I an remember seeing a persistent bot like this.

Thanks for that background info.

 

As I understand it, websites can benefit in some way from having links to them on as many other sites as possible (or is it that some website owners believe that to be the case). I believe it is something to do with google rankings?

It seems not to matter where the links are, so long as they are there and in large numbers if possible. The more the better - apparently.

 

Reputable websites will try and achieve this through agreed link exchanges with other websites.

 

Less reputable site operators will achieve it anyway they can, and spamming online forms seems to be a favourite. Hence the captcha things which are everywhere these days (would hate to see them required for logging).

 

So while this may be an individual or small group playing with cache logs now, if it is possible (and easy) to do then I don't think it will be too long before some of the more organised spammers catch on to the idea and start causing real havoc with some really offensive spam in very large quantities across the whole site.

[+Tequila]

Brad,

 

I beg to differ with you. On the surface, what you say sounds good. But as a developer myself, I know that it would take an hour or two to come up with a query that would delete all logs for a given user id. It isn't rocket science.

 

I just had to use my own time to delete 17 bogus cache logs. These were, of course, on caches that I used my own time and money to put out. In addition, the forum timed out as I posted my previous log to this thread while reporting this particular bot, and then it timed out again (and I knew that it would, because it is a long-standing, known problem) when reporting my post to alert Groundspeak.

 

Something seems awfully unbalanced to me about all of this. We didn't create this problem, we should not have to fix it.

 

I agree. A lot of innocent cacher owners are bearing the brunt of these bots. That is unfair.

 

If Groundspeak doesn't step up to the plate and take ownership of this issue, the bots win. There will be a lot of unhappy geocachers and that is probably one of their objectives.

 

IMHO, when one of these pop up, GS should delete (not just ban) the account and all associated logs.

 

.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I've been on the forums about 3.5 years and this is the first time that I an remember seeing a persistent bot like this.

Thanks for that background info.

 

As I understand it, websites can benefit in some way from having links to them on as many other sites as possible (or is it that some website owners believe that to be the case). I believe it is something to do with google rankings?

It seems not to matter where the links are, so long as they are there and in large numbers if possible. The more the better - apparently.

 

Reputable websites will try and achieve this through agreed link exchanges with other websites.

 

Less reputable site operators will achieve it anyway they can, and spamming online forms seems to be a favourite. Hence the captcha things which are everywhere these days (would hate to see them required for logging).

 

So while this may be an individual or small group playing with cache logs now, if it is possible (and easy) to do then I don't think it will be too long before some of the more organised spammers catch on to the idea and start causing real havoc with some really offensive spam in very large quantities across the whole site.

 

I've developed dozens of web sites so I see link exchange requests all of the time. Most of the requests come from reputable sites but rarely are they relevant. I put together a set of pages about 15 years ago mostly as a way to organize some information about a variety of topics for personal use. Even though I haven't updated the site in 10 years I still get requests all the time to exhange links. I've also developed lots of sites for my university as well as a site for the federal government and frequent get requests for link exchanges on those sites as well (not going to happen).

 

I'm less concerned about organized spammers then the possibility that blocking bots that are merely posting inappropriate logs on geocaches will escalate to denial of service attacks. That's why I suggest going after the perp directly rather than just retroactively dealing with the efforts of the attacks.

[+Knight2000]

I'm not going to go and fret about the 40 logs to my caches. I've got better things to worry about. I have no need to delete them either. It seems that might feed the monster. I think it's kind of funny though.

Funny? As in "ha! ha!" funny?

Yeah. Life is too short.

 

GS will take care of it. They are pretty much forced to now.

[+rob3k]

Hmm, actually better not go there.

Edited October 5, 2010 by rob3k

[+ZeLonewolf]

Removal is only part of the picture. We need a way to prevent this kind of thing in the first place. Surely there's a technical solution to that could be applied to very new accounts. Some kind of throttle perhaps. Perhaps the judicious application of captcha to certain logging patterns.

[+Dr.MORO]

Besides ETLogEater there is also ForestDefender - see the logs on GC2G2J9.

At the time of the above post I believe ForestDefenders' find count was somewhere below 100. Now it's 3423.

 

All logs are:

[Found it] October 4 by ForestDefenders (3489 found)

 

Stop littering and destroying our fragile ecosystems!

(including an external link)

 

And now the found count is 3489....

 

Domo!!!

 

I just got a whole bunch of bogus find log notifications from this "ForestDefenders" loser, with a link to his self-centered ill-justified 'Hate' blog.

 

Already sent Groundspeak a 'Ban' request.

 

Poor guy, living a life only full of hate, hate, hate... Why not hate himself...

 

Happy caching everyone, and don't forget to CITO!

 

~ Dr.MORO

[+t4e]

one solution to this would be to require the first 25-50 logs of any new member be approved by the CO before they actually show up on the cache page

 

where CO are not active a system can be in place where the Reviewers in the area would approve those logs

 

don't want to burden the Reviewers?...get more staff to help, i'm sure a lot of people would be more than happy to do so

Edited October 5, 2010 by t4e