Possible armchair logger, what to do.

January 10, 2011

I got an email from someone that had the answer to my virtual cache. The problem is, he logged two other virtual caches 1,000 miles apart yesterday, both 3,000 miles away from mine! This cacher is also from germany, an area known for fake logs.

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

The only problem is, I also know the owner can't stop someone from logging your cache if they met all the requirements, and he did that.

2.1k · January 10, 2011

The only problem is, I also know the owner can't stop someone from logging your cache if they met all the requirements, and he did that.

Well, there you go.

19k · January 10, 2011

I got an email from someone that had the answer to my virtual cache. The problem is, he logged two other virtual caches 1,000 miles apart yesterday, both 3,000 miles away from mine! This cacher is also from germany, an area known for fake logs.

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

The only problem is, I also know the owner can't stop someone from logging your cache if they met all the requirements, and he did that.

I think the key words in that are "will agree to delete any "find" logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit". Notice that it says that they only need to "appear" bogus for you to delete them.

You may want to send an email to the cacher, asking if there is a reason you should not consider such an extraordinary logging act to be bogus, but I'm guessing that you won't get an answer.

2.8k · January 10, 2011

Thats the problem with Virtual caches. You don't really have a good way to verify the find. If you suspect he didn't make the fine then you have the right to delete the log. Just make sure its worth the possible trouble it could cause. You could delete it and find he is just now sitting down and logging his finds from the past month. Or maybe he didn't find it but will continue to log the find as long as you keep deleting it.

IMO its not worth the trouble. If this was a regular cache then you would have the physical log to check and know for sure.

6.7k · January 10, 2011

Delete it. I'll bet a dollar that the "finder" won't question it.

1.8k · January 10, 2011

The same guidelines give you some cover for deleting the log, should you conclude that it is bogus. From the section on Virtual Caches: "The seeker must answer a question from the landmark and verify to the cache owner that he was physically at the location." You're entitled to try to verify he was at the location, and you're within your rights to delete the log if not.

I don't think that this means someone must prove his presence beyond all doubt, but it's reasonable to shift additional burden back to the cacher when multiple Virtuals are being logged on the same day, thousands of miles apart.

22k · January 10, 2011

but I'm guessing that you won't get an answer.

My thought exactly. Who knows, maybe they will respond and tell you in no uncertain terms that they were traveling and did find your cache. Then you'll have the opportunity to apologize.

Ask, give it a few days, and if no response delete.

If they respond later they can always re-log the cache and no harm done.

38.2k · January 10, 2011

The only problem is, I also know the owner can't stop someone from logging your cache if they met all the requirements, and he did that.

Actually visiting the cache is one of the requirements. If he didn't do that then you can delete the log.

You can ask him flat out if he visited. Often armchair loggers will admit that they didn't. Or you can ask additional questions about the site where the answers might not be on the virtual "cheat sheet" that I hear gets passed around some places.

4.1k · January 10, 2011

I got an email from someone that had the answer to my virtual cache. The problem is, he logged two other virtual caches 1,000 miles apart yesterday, both 3,000 miles away from mine! This cacher is also from germany, an area known for fake logs.

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

The only problem is, I also know the owner can't stop someone from logging your cache if they met all the requirements, and he did that.

We have a lot of travelers coming through our area where we have our traditional caches. The overseas people tend to wait till they get back home to log their finds while on vacation/holiday.

So, I would give this logger the chance to reply to an E-mail before deleting his log, *because, he just might have been logging a bunch of caches and did not change the date for your virtual cache.

A nice and simple explanation that makes sense to me, since I have been guilty of leaving the date the same for all my logs for several days of caching.

Shirley~

January 10, 2011

I got an email from someone that had the answer to my virtual cache. The problem is, he logged two other virtual caches 1,000 miles apart yesterday, both 3,000 miles away from mine! This cacher is also from germany, an area known for fake logs.

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

The only problem is, I also know the owner can't stop someone from logging your cache if they met all the requirements, and he did that.

We have a lot of travelers coming through our area where we have our traditional caches. The overseas people tend to wait till they get back home to log their finds while on vacation/holiday.

So, I would give this logger the chance to reply to an E-mail before deleting his log, *because, he just might have been logging a bunch of caches and did not change the date for your virtual cache.

A nice and simple explanation that makes sense to me, since I have been guilty of leaving the date the same for all my logs for several days of caching.

Shirley~

I know about travelers logging caches, I have a virtual just outside Disney.

This person has only logged caches in Niedersachsen, Germany before yesterday. Most people would try to find at least one traditional cache while on vacation. He logged a cache in Seattle and 150 miles SE of Albuquerque in the same day, without logging anything on the cache 47feet away from it.

I've emailed him and asked if he has any other way to prove he was there, I don't think I will get a response, his first email seems like it went thru babblefish a dozen times before I got it.

8k · January 10, 2011

You may want to send him this link to the German speaking forums.

January 10, 2011

You said he met all the requirements, save possibly the one about actually visiting the virtual. You could ask him one or two more questions if you feel so inclined or you could just let it stand as is. Really, if he didn't actually visit your cache, the only person he has really cheated is himself. How sad is that?

Edited January 10, 2011 by Brooklyn51

1.8k · January 10, 2011

Really, if he didn't actually visit your cache, the only person he has really cheated is himself. How sad is that?

The only thing I'll add is that if armchair logging contributes to the chances that a Virtual gets archived, it can cheat a lot of other cachers out of a game piece they'd have been interested in playing for real.

January 10, 2011

how could armchair logging possibly contribute to the archival of a virtual cache?

Since there is no physical log to sign, virtually anyone can find your virtual, from virtually anywhere.

Since most virtuals can be logged with a photoshopped picture, or a few google answers, why does it matter if someone went there or not, besides, arnt virtuals pretty much the same thing as Waymarking anyway, which has its own site?

1.8k · January 10, 2011

how could armchair logging possibly contribute to the archival of a virtual cache?

This is from a post by Miss Jenn in the summer of 2009 (a German translation is linked above):

What's a couch potato log?

The term couch potato log refers to logging a virtual cache even though you never actually visited the location. Instead, you found out the answer to the verification question through internet research or other means.

...

What will Groundspeak and the reviewers do?

If Groundspeak or the reviewers become aware of a cache which is abused with many bogus couch potato logs, the owner will be informed about the situation and given some time to do maintenance on the cache (i.e: deleting the bogus logs and tightening the verification if necessary).

If nothing is done to correct the situation, the cache may be archived.

Full text here.

2.8k · January 10, 2011

I guess that's why a good requirement for virtuals and earth caches is a photo of the cacher with their GPS at the location.

January 10, 2011

so if I have been to the Lincoln memorial and the famous las vegas sign, and i visited them before i learned about geocaching, and have pictures of me standing in front of them, and log those finds on the same night, because i have been to both, is that a bogus find and i am a armchair cacher?

22k · January 10, 2011

how could armchair logging possibly contribute to the archival of a virtual cache?

Since there is no physical log to sign, virtually anyone can find your virtual, from virtually anywhere.

Since most virtuals can be logged with a photoshopped picture, or a few google answers, why does it matter if someone went there or not, besides, arnt virtuals pretty much the same thing as Waymarking anyway, which has its own site?

1:

how could armchair logging possibly contribute to the archival of a virtual cache?

2:

why does it matter if someone went there or not

And yet you see no correlation.

1.5k · January 11, 2011

so if I have been to the Lincoln memorial and the famous las vegas sign, and i visited them before i learned about geocaching, and have pictures of me standing in front of them, and log those finds on the same night, because i have been to both, is that a bogus find and i am a armchair cacher?

Did your Las Vegas Sign picture include a picture of your GPS? That was a requirement to log that virtual.

January 11, 2011

Or he could have been in an airplane. It would be completely possible to have done some caches before and after the plane ride, especially if a layover or something was involved. Of course, if there are lots of "layovers" then I would simply ask, "Are you sure you are logging on the right cache?" Maybe even throw in an obvious "verification" question that he would know the answer to had he been there, such as about the parking lot or something. Something like, "Hi, thanks for logging. Please double check to make sure you are logging the right cache. For verification I ask a simple question related to the cache. Was the parking lot a circle or square shape?" You know something obvious and easy, if you had actually been there.

January 11, 2011

how could armchair logging possibly contribute to the archival of a virtual cache?

It does, and has. One of my favorite all time VCs was a 5/5 in Joshua Tree, and recently it had been armchair logged by another German cacher who claimed finds on VCs across the state of California and beyond in the same day. A couple of cachers questioned it, and the VC was archived the next day. That fast.

Although I'm still pretty angered by it because it really didn't do anyone any good to have archived it, in fairness, the CO hadn't logged in for quite some time, which added to the GS reasoning behind archiving it.

January 11, 2011

If you believe your cache has been logged by someone who is posting numerous improbable logs, you may write to contact@geocaching.com and describe the situation. There are actually some folks who believe that finding the answers is adequate justification for claiming a find on the cache page.

Usually an explanation that an actual visit to the location is also required will cause the practice to stop.

January 11, 2011

seems to me Groundspeak is looking for anything to give a reason to archive caches they no longer support such as virtuals, whats the big deal? Its their site, we play by their rules, if it means individual cachers have to suffer to steer the company twards its goals of no more virtuals, then so be it. Thats precisely why I spent money for a premium membership, I support groundspeaks decisions, and agree geocaches should only have some sort of physical cache at the end of the gps rainbow, virtuals do nothing but force cachers to take horrible pictures of themselves and show the geocaching community what a bunch of nerds we all really are, no matter how tough we may seem in the forums. This is precisely why virtuals are bad, and need to be outlawed, (or at least made into waymarks)

19k · January 11, 2011

seems to me Groundspeak is looking for anything to give a reason to archive caches they no longer support such as virtuals, whats the big deal? Its their site, we play by their rules, if it means individual cachers have to suffer to steer the company twards its goals of no more virtuals, then so be it. Thats precisely why I spent money for a premium membership, I support groundspeaks decisions, and agree geocaches should only have some sort of physical cache at the end of the gps rainbow, virtuals do nothing but force cachers to take horrible pictures of themselves and show the geocaching community what a bunch of nerds we all really are, no matter how tough we may seem in the forums. This is precisely why virtuals are bad, and need to be outlawed, (or at least made into waymarks)

If you support Groundspeak as blindly as you claim in that post, then you will also support just as blindly, their decision to grandfather existing virtuals. Yet, that doesn't seem to be the case. You feel they need to be "outlawed", for some odd reason. Virtuals, in my opinion and experience, have brought me to some extraordinary places. I cannot think of one single virtual that I've found that I regretted. Unfortunately, I can't say the same for every physical cache that I've found.

Incidentally, John... exactly how many of these lame virtual caches have you found?

Edited January 11, 2011 by knowschad

7.4k · January 11, 2011

arnt virtuals pretty much the same thing as Waymarking anyway, which has its own site?

:drama:

8k · January 11, 2011

arnt virtuals pretty much the same thing as Waymarking anyway, which has its own site?

You almost go me to start my "robot" response, though it was mostly in reaction to Knowschad's claim that there wasn't a single virtual he regretted looking for. But then I looked and saw this thread is about armchair logging. So I'll save it for another discussion as to whether or not virtuals and waymarks are the same thing. But I will say that I don't think they are the same, though Waymarking could encompass virtuals. The problem has always been defining what a virtual cache is, so people don't submit other types of waymarks as virtual caches.

January 11, 2011

seems to me Groundspeak is looking for anything to give a reason to archive caches they no longer support such as virtuals, whats the big deal? Its their site, we play by their rules, if it means individual cachers have to suffer to steer the company twards its goals of no more virtuals, then so be it. Thats precisely why I spent money for a premium membership, I support groundspeaks decisions, and agree geocaches should only have some sort of physical cache at the end of the gps rainbow, virtuals do nothing but force cachers to take horrible pictures of themselves and show the geocaching community what a bunch of nerds we all really are, no matter how tough we may seem in the forums. This is precisely why virtuals are bad, and need to be outlawed, (or at least made into waymarks)

if you took this obviously a joke post seriously you should probably take some time off the forums to pursue a career in something more serious like being a divorce lawyer, or ice cream truck driver.

January 11, 2011

seems to me Groundspeak is looking for anything to give a reason to archive caches they no longer support such as virtuals, whats the big deal? Its their site, we play by their rules, if it means individual cachers have to suffer to steer the company twards its goals of no more virtuals, then so be it. Thats precisely why I spent money for a premium membership, I support groundspeaks decisions, and agree geocaches should only have some sort of physical cache at the end of the gps rainbow, virtuals do nothing but force cachers to take horrible pictures of themselves and show the geocaching community what a bunch of nerds we all really are, no matter how tough we may seem in the forums. This is precisely why virtuals are bad, and need to be outlawed, (or at least made into waymarks)

if you took this obviously a joke post seriously you should probably take some time off the forums to pursue a career in something more serious like being a divorce lawyer, or ice cream truck driver.

wasn't obvious to me either... :huh:

January 11, 2011

Right over my head...

19k · January 11, 2011

seems to me Groundspeak is looking for anything to give a reason to archive caches they no longer support such as virtuals, whats the big deal? Its their site, we play by their rules, if it means individual cachers have to suffer to steer the company twards its goals of no more virtuals, then so be it. Thats precisely why I spent money for a premium membership, I support groundspeaks decisions, and agree geocaches should only have some sort of physical cache at the end of the gps rainbow, virtuals do nothing but force cachers to take horrible pictures of themselves and show the geocaching community what a bunch of nerds we all really are, no matter how tough we may seem in the forums. This is precisely why virtuals are bad, and need to be outlawed, (or at least made into waymarks)

if you took this obviously a joke post seriously you should probably take some time off the forums to pursue a career in something more serious like being a divorce lawyer, or ice cream truck driver.

You might want to fine-tune your parody skills, John.

January 11, 2011

so if I have been to the Lincoln memorial and the famous las vegas sign, and i visited them before i learned about geocaching, and have pictures of me standing in front of them, and log those finds on the same night, because i have been to both, is that a bogus find and i am a armchair cacher?

Did your Las Vegas Sign picture include a picture of your GPS? That was a requirement to log that virtual.

Seems I recall that's a requirement of the cache owner and not allowed by Groundspeak.

January 11, 2011

Hi folks.

This topic seems to have taken a turn off course into finger-pointing land. If everyone is done responding to Downy288's original question, perhaps someone can report it as being ready to be closed.

1.8k · January 11, 2011

Seems I recall that's a requirement of the cache owner and not allowed by Groundspeak.

I thought that there was an exception for Virtual caches, as they have different verification needs without a physical logbook. But then I just found this on the Earthcache site:

Requests for photographs must be optional. Exceptions to this guideline will only be considered if the requested photograph is related to an Earth Science logging activity such as recording a phenomenon. This particular guidelines [sic] was updated on 1 January 2011. All EarthCaches must conform to this guideline as photo requests are considered "additional logging requirements" (ALRs) and follow the guidelines set forth by Geocaching.com.
Existing EarthCaches that do not meet this guideline must be updated to comply. Cache owners may not delete the cacher's log based solely on optional tasks.

So, now I'm not entirely sure. I don't know if photo requirements are allowed and grandfathered for Virtuals, or if they've been retro-banned (in the way that ALRs were for physical caches).

7.4k · January 11, 2011

seems to me Groundspeak is looking for anything to give a reason to archive caches they no longer support such as virtuals, whats the big deal? Its their site, we play by their rules, if it means individual cachers have to suffer to steer the company twards its goals of no more virtuals, then so be it. Thats precisely why I spent money for a premium membership, I support groundspeaks decisions, and agree geocaches should only have some sort of physical cache at the end of the gps rainbow, virtuals do nothing but force cachers to take horrible pictures of themselves and show the geocaching community what a bunch of nerds we all really are, no matter how tough we may seem in the forums. This is precisely why virtuals are bad, and need to be outlawed, (or at least made into waymarks)

if you took this obviously a joke post seriously you should probably take some time off the forums to pursue a career in something more serious like being a divorce lawyer, or ice cream truck driver.

wasn't obvious to me either...

Next he'll claim it was a social experiment.

January 11, 2011

again, the photoshop skills of any amateur can easily place ones gps or ones self in a picture of a virtual to log it found.

5.7k · January 12, 2011

I like Waymarking, we don't have many virtuals in our area, and the ones that we do have don't have owners.

Possible armchair logger, what to do.

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Join the conversation