Armchair Cacher

[Fledermaus]

Hypothetically, if there were a geocacher in your area who was falsely claiming to have found a lot of geocaches, having personally checked the logbooks in several of those geocaches, what would you do to stop this kind of behavior? Furthermore and at what point, if at all, would you notify GS of this persons actions?

Edited May 30, 2011 by Fledermaus

[+Kiyojohn]

I posted a similar message/question on facebook. Almost everyone said they would delete the armchair cachers logs if he logged finds on their caches, but didn't sign the physical logs. I'm curious if GS would get involved with an issue like this?

[+steve & renee]

Alot of cachers don't physically check there log books, but some do and we've seen logs get deleted!

[+Lieblweb]

Am I seeing triplets? Or is there 3 separate posts about this?

 

Ignore what other cachers are doing. You're spending more time nit picking about what other people are doing (or not doing) and not enjoying the hobby for YOU.

[+PhatBldGuy]

Just to start my reply with a a couple of questions. First, is it possible they found the cache under another name or as a team? I have seen cachers go back and relog caches under their new names when they were part of a team. They found it an signed the log at that time didn't they? That being said this game is built on honesty and if you feel they are being dishonest then by all means delete the logs. I really wouldn't put much effort into tracking down signatures though. I have enough things to worry about to really bother with an armchair cacheR though.

TheMcMorrows

[+The Blorenges]

If they have claimed 'false finds' on your own geocaches and their audacity is giving you sleepless nights then delete the logs and send them an email explaining why you have done so.

 

Other cache owners will make their own decisions on how bothered/not bothered they are about such matters.

 

(I doubt that Groundspeak would get involved unless it's a case of one of those 'bots' automatically logging false finds.)

 

MrsB

[+W7WT]

Hypothetically, if there were a geocacher in your area who was falsely claiming to have found a lot of geocaches, having personally checked the logbooks in several of those geocaches, what would you do to stop this kind of behavior? Furthermore and at what point, if at all, would you notify GS of this persons actions?

 

Hi Ray, I have only deleted two armchair logging of my virtual cache "High on a Windy Hill" at Hurricane Ridge in the ONP They claimed a find and had the right answers. Only problem was it was winter time and the road was closed to the top. They also logged several caches the same day in several states. It was two German cachers. I keep an eagle eye and records on that virtual. Dick

[Fledermaus]

duplicate

Edited May 30, 2011 by Fledermaus

[Fledermaus]

I don't know why there are three separate messages for this topic. I sent it once and edited it twice for typos. Is there a glitch on the forum system or maybe I have a bad key-bounce problem. In any case, they need to be combined or whatever.

[+ZeroHecksGiven]

My other post didn't get joined from one of the duplicate threads, so I'm posting it here:

 

I wouldn't even worry about it. If they get off on having never visited some really cool caches, that's their issue. I dunno, kind of a bummer, but I'd just look past it and if they're logging your caches personally, just delete the logs.

[+Scubasonic]

Hypothetically, if there were a geocacher in your area who was falsely claiming to have found a lot of geocaches, having personally checked the logbooks in several of those geocaches, what would you do to stop this kind of behavior? Furthermore and at what point, if at all, would you notify GS of this persons actions?

 

We have a guy in our area that as of about 4 months ago had only found caches in Oregon and Washington then decided to armchair log all virtuals that he could find sometimes several in different countries all in the same day he says he has permission from the owner to do so, which I really don't believe, he says he answers and emails the answers to the questions. At the end of the day he has to live with himself who really cares.

 

Scubasonic

[+lamoracke]

Hypothetically, if there were a geocacher in your area who was falsely claiming to have found a lot of geocaches, having personally checked the logbooks in several of those geocaches, what would you do to stop this kind of behavior? Furthermore and at what point, if at all, would you notify GS of this persons actions?

 

We have a guy in our area that as of about 4 months ago had only found caches in Oregon and Washington then decided to armchair log all virtuals that he could find sometimes several in different countries all in the same day he says he has permission from the owner to do so, which I really don't believe, he says he answers and emails the answers to the questions. At the end of the day he has to live with himself who really cares.

 

Scubasonic

 

a while back there was a guy who logged a bunch of tough Fishiam and Camp Latona puzzles out of the blue as well as many others in the Seattle area, including a few tough terrain ones. What was odd was that some of those caches were obviously not there. One of which I KNEW was not there because I DNFed it the prior day and the CO knew it was not there too as he went to check on it. I brought it up to CL's attention and eventually we brought it to Groundspeak's attention because it was so obvious he was cheating (finds all over the world in a short time span, including APE caches, etc) that I think GS did something about it. I imagine most folks are not that careless about it and if they will cheat, will do a better job at picking better caches or not drawing attention to themselves.

 

If it was a tough cache and you 99.9% knew it was someone blatantly cheating, personally I would not allow the find. Do not know the details of your situation though.

Edited June 22, 2011 by lamoracke

[+Tobias & Petronella]

How about asking the cacher that did this?

 

For example - In reviewing the logbook I did not see your name, but at the same time you posted a "Found It" log online. Can you explain?

[+BlueDeuce]

(I doubt that Groundspeak would get involved unless it's a case of one of those 'bots' automatically logging false finds.)

 

MrsB

 

And in English:

 

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's wrong with that?

 

Well, it was never intended that way. Virtual caches are like physical caches, just without the box. You are supposed to actually visit the location, find any verification info there and then log your find online.

 

Not actually visiting the location is considered as cheating by most geocachers. Just like when you post an online found log for a traditional cache when you never found that box and/or never signed the logbook. Also these couch potato logs contribute to the archiving of virtual caches. Many virtuals have been abused by so many cachers that they had to be archived. Often these are among the oldest caches in an area and many of them are in really interesting spots.

 

And yes, it's all in the guidelines:

A virtual cache is an existing, permanent landmark of a unique nature. The seeker must answer a question from the landmark and verify to the cache owner that he was physically at the location

How did this happen?

 

Basically we think this is the result of a misunderstanding growing out of proportion.

 

First there were a few geocachers which logged a virtual after they found the verification info on the Internet or through other means. Heck, there were (are?) even some caches without any verification requirement at all. Others copied that behavior.

 

Lists of couch potato caches were created, without any hint that this was not the proper way to log virtuals. Even more people copied the behavior thinking it was perfectly OK. And probably also the language barrier contributed:

virtual cache = virtual log, or not?

Also neither Groundspeak nor the reviewers really stepped in so the behavior became really widespread and some thought that it is accepted.

 

So this is not about finger-pointing at anyone. It's about giving feedback, changing behaviors and mending the rift between the couch potato community with the rest of the geocaching world.

 

Common misconceptions about couch potato logs

"There's no requirement visiting the location in the cache listing".

 

Stating that you must visit the location is not necessary as this is an implicit requirement, just like the one that you need to bring a GPS receiver to find a traditional cache. Also this requirement has been in the Guidelines since July 2002:

There should be a question that only the visitor to that location will be able to answer. The questions should be difficult enough that it cannot be answered unless you physically visit the spot.

(Source: http://web.archive.org/web/20020811012522/...quirements.asp)

 

"It's the owner's responsibility to remove bogus logs".

 

That's true. It is also true that the searchers of a geocache have some responsibilities to keep it alive. For a physical cache that means avoiding that muggles see you while getting the cache and re-hiding the cache properly. For a virtual cache that means visiting the location and not posting the verification info in your log.

 

"It's the owners fault that the info can be found on the internet".

 

No, often that's not the owner's fault. In many cases the information was not available when the virtual cache was published years ago. Remember, many of the caches in question were placed many years ago. At that time Google maps and geotagged photo collections didn't even exist!

 

What can you do?

1. Stop logging virtuals as "Found It" unless you really visited the location. A good way to demonstrate good behavior is to post a photo from you at the location. (Try to avoid spoilers though!)
   
2. Spread the word! If you have a blog, post about it, and maybe link to this thread. Talk about it at the next event. Educate your geocaching friends. Compose a funny couch potato song. ;-)
   
3. You may want to go through the list of virtuals you have found and check if there are any couch potato logs among them. You can convert them into a note or even delete them. Yes, this reduces your find count, but afterward you can proudly say that you really found all of them.
   
4. If you own a virtual cache, regularly check for any bogus logs and delete them. You may also want to tighten the verification to avoid further abuse - often a photo requirement fixes any issues.
   
   

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.

[+Gan Dalf]

Hypothetically, if there were a geocacher in your area who was falsely claiming to have found a lot of geocaches, having personally checked the logbooks in several of those geocaches, what would you do to stop this kind of behavior? Furthermore and at what point, if at all, would you notify GS of this persons actions?

 

It seems to me that the question being asked (and I apologize if I am misinterpreting this) is with regard to caches that are owned by other cachers and not the OP. I asked a similar question once regarding the cache in Everett that requires you to find a TB in order to log it. Someone had logged the cache without ever having found the required TB(s) and so there was no way for them to know where the cache was located. I subsequently stopped by the cache and checked the log and discovered that the person who claimed a find had never really found it; or at least they had not signed the log book.

 

The general consensus from the broader caching community (I posted this in the general forums rather than the NW forums) was for me to mind my own business and let the CO manage their cache. When I protested, but, but, but... I was basiclly told to shut the hell up.

 

If the CO is not bothered by it then there is no reason why you should be. If you really need to tell the CO that their cache is being logged without the physical log ever being signed then go for it but don't be surprised if the CO never does anything about it. I presonally don't like deleting logs. But if it is a blatant armchair log, then I will do it...

 

Not sure if this helps or not but good luck with whatever you decide to do.

Edited June 23, 2011 by FobesMan

[+Gan Dalf]

(I doubt that Groundspeak would get involved unless it's a case of one of those 'bots' automatically logging false finds.)

 

MrsB

 

And in English:

 

<snip> a bunch of irrelavant information about virtual caches.

 

 

while all of that was very good information to have, the OP specificlly stated log books being unsigned, He's not talking about virtual caches...

[+BlueDeuce]

while all of that was very good information to have, the OP specificlly stated log books being unsigned, He's not talking about virtual caches...

 

Before we get into the whole 'did he sign the logbook, kinda, maybe, couldn't, can't, meant to, argument - is that what we are talking about? Or virtual logging.

[+~GuybrushThreepwood~]

Really, when it comes to armchair logging, isn't the only person getting cheated, the person who didn't visit the location and enjoy the special thing or special spot that the CO wanted to share with people?! Who cares if people armchair log? I would never, but, do you really take yourself THAT serious that your going police and enforce that much as to physically match signed names to logbooks?! Come on. I personally think that's silly. If someone wants to armchair log a cache, bug deal. The only person who is getting cheated is them for missing out on what geocAching is all about, the thrill of the hunt and the rush of the find.

[+TotemLake]

Really, when it comes to armchair logging, isn't the only person getting cheated, the person who didn't visit the location and enjoy the special thing or special spot that the CO wanted to share with people?! Who cares if people armchair log? I would never, but, do you really take yourself THAT serious that your going police and enforce that much as to physically match signed names to logbooks?! Come on. I personally think that's silly. If someone wants to armchair log a cache, bug deal. The only person who is getting cheated is them for missing out on what geocAching is all about, the thrill of the hunt and the rush of the find.

 

It isn't about the fake numbers of the armchair cacher.

 

If there are a string of DNFs in place, an armchair log can provide a false impression the cache is there and in good shape when it may not be. It is the CO's responsibility to be sure the logs are accurate so it provides a correct history and condition of the cache.

 

You could be the one conceivably come behind this kind of log to only find out the fake log mislead you to think the cache was still there. The cheat is more far reaching than just the armchair cacher.

Edited July 21, 2011 by TotemLake

[+W7WT]

I have a virtual cache "High on a Windy Hill" in the Olympic National Park and have only had to delete two German cachers finds. I am required to certify that the cachers were actually there. I accept answers to questions or a picture of them at the site. Failure to do so may get the virtual

archived.