Suspected Armchair Logger - Weyder

[+MTH]

I suspect another archair logger: Weyder

 

Logged 59 finds in new York, London & Latvia on the same day. I've sent a polite email asking for confirmation theye did find my cache.

 

mark

[+prot1]

i wonder if superman has taken up caching with his flying skills he could possably have done it

[+FuzzyBears]

I suspect another archair logger: Weyder

 

Logged 59 finds in new York, London & Latvia on the same day. I've sent a polite email asking for confirmation theye did find my cache.

 

mark

 

Check the log in the cache???

[+NattyBooshka]

I suspect another archair logger: Weyder

 

Logged 59 finds in new York, London & Latvia on the same day. I've sent a polite email asking for confirmation theye did find my cache.

 

mark

Add to that New York/New Jersey and Washington state on the same day too!

[Pup Patrol]

I suspect another archair logger: Weyder

 

Logged 59 finds in new York, London & Latvia on the same day. I've sent a polite email asking for confirmation theye did find my cache.

 

mark

 

You can report this account to Groundspeak and they can deal with it in one swoop.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Yes! You forgot to mention New Jersey! What aroused my suspicion, when he logged four of my caches, is that New York and New Jersey were basically closed on Sunday, due to hurricane Irene. Travel prohibited. No public transportation. I will be checking my caches over the weekend.

That being said, he might be a new cacher, who was on a business trip, and logged all his finds when he got back to Latvia, and did not change the found date. These finds might have been over the period of a month. One CO in NYC did find an illegible signature which might have been put there on the 25th-27th. I'll let you know what I find on my four caches.

But, yes, it did arouse my suspicion, especially since we were closed down for the hurricane.

[+Geocass&Andy750x]

I had a blatent arm chair logger once. Suspected due to the same reasons. I think they claimed to have travelled about 400 miles in one day caching. I went and checked a few cache logs. No signature. Deleted the logs and politely emailed them. I got a snotty email back and they re-logged them. Deleted again. Relogged again, and then relogged pretty much every single one of my other caches, followed by posting several "Needs archiving" logs on about 5 of my other caches. I notified my local reviewers that it was a prankster. Left the logs as they were with notes on so that any cachers planning to go for my caches were aware that they were indeed ok and that Groundspeak could see what had happened. I wasn't particularly bothered about the "Needs Archiving" logs as that can be fixed, but they also created two obviously fake events in too! I reported them to Groundspeak and managed to also put 2 and 2 together and worked out who the actual "real" cacher was who did it. I emailed the real cacher and asked them to sort it out. They of course denied all knowledge and said someone hacked their email and set up another account posing as them! I won't go into any details, but it was extremely obvious that it was BS! They told me that they would remove the logs on my caches and events in London. Sure enough they did. Funny how they knew the password of the fake account, eh? They're possibly reading this now too...

 

Groundspeak didn't particularly care though. They didn't even suspend the fake account, which did surprise me a bit. Could actually be someone that you know...

[+MTH]

That being said, he might be a new cacher, who was on a business trip, and logged all his finds when he got back to Latvia, and did not change the found date

 

Which is the only reason I've given him/her the benefit of the doubt.

 

What made me suspicious was a double log of simply "Found It" on a mystery cache that's not straigtforward to solve and the same log on a few other London caches I'm watching. He/she has also logged the bonus cache of a series of 22 without logging any of the others so I don't expect to see a signature when I check my log!

Edited August 30, 2011 by MTH

[+Palujia]

It's like the game of golf - you can play like an idiot and score over a hundred, but put down lower numbers on your card for submission. You are only cheating yourself ! It does not matter in the great scheme of things, other than if they log a really great cache, in a really great location, or a complex puzzle without solving it, they have missed out on the walk, the view or perhaps the satisfaction of cracking the code - Their loss !!

[+Chief301]

i wonder if superman has taken up caching with his flying skills he could possably have done it

 

Not to mention the x-ray vision...that would also come in real handy for caching!

[+sTeamTraen]

Left the logs as they were with notes on so that any cachers planning to go for my caches were aware that they were indeed ok and that Groundspeak could see what had happened.

FWIW, Groundspeak and the reviewers can see deleted logs. So while it might be useful to leave the notes for the other seekers, you could have safely deleted the NA logs and bogus finds. In fact, that's the safest way to do it when reporting log issues to a reviewer or to Groundspeak, since it stops the author of the logs from going back in and editing them to "fluffy bunnies".

[+Max and 99]

 

FWIW, Groundspeak and the reviewers can see deleted logs. So while it might be useful to leave the notes for the other seekers, you could have safely deleted the NA logs and bogus finds. In fact, that's the safest way to do it when reporting log issues to a reviewer or to Groundspeak, since it stops the author of the logs from going back in and editing them to "fluffy bunnies".

 

That's smart thinking and good to know!

[+drsolly]

i wonder if superman has taken up caching with his flying skills he could possably have done it

 

Not to mention the x-ray vision...that would also come in real handy for caching!

 

I suffer from that. I can look straight at a cache, and all I see is the tree behind it.

[+CnJnA]

I'm going to hold my hand up here and ask for comments...my other half is a distance truck driver, and sometimes gets to do a cache or 2 whilst parked up overnight. A few weeks ago he logged a cache nr London around the same time that I ran out for a FTF about 2 miles from home. Now both finds were genuine, logbooks signed, but I still feel a bit uneasy that someone might look at the logs and suspect armchair logging...I however don't do that coz the only person I would be cheating is me. Any thoughts?

[+Legochugglers]

I'm going to hold my hand up here and ask for comments...my other half is a distance truck driver, and sometimes gets to do a cache or 2 whilst parked up overnight. A few weeks ago he logged a cache nr London around the same time that I ran out for a FTF about 2 miles from home. Now both finds were genuine, logbooks signed, but I still feel a bit uneasy that someone might look at the logs and suspect armchair logging...I however don't do that coz the only person I would be cheating is me. Any thoughts?

 

I don't think you would have a problem here because if one of the CO's had a suspicion and they e-mailed you I assume your response and explanation would make total sense and if they checked the logs then they are clearly signed.

 

Whilst I think it is going to be unlikely that any such response is going to be received in the 'Weyder' incident (or any signed logs found) no doubt the CO's concerned will report back shortly to let us know if they have a response to their polite e-mails.

 

It does seem quite bizarre that the armchair logger picked such a diverse and obvious set of caches to log if they were just trying to bolster their numbers??

[+Happy Humphrey]

I'm going to hold my hand up here and ask for comments...my other half is a distance truck driver, and sometimes gets to do a cache or 2 whilst parked up overnight. A few weeks ago he logged a cache nr London around the same time that I ran out for a FTF about 2 miles from home. Now both finds were genuine, logbooks signed, but I still feel a bit uneasy that someone might look at the logs and suspect armchair logging...I however don't do that coz the only person I would be cheating is me. Any thoughts?

That wouldn't be a problem anyway. It's common for people to log caches 100+ miles apart in the same day even if they work as an individual rather than a team. I've done it many times; over 200 miles sometimes. You only have to log a local cache as you leave for holiday and then another when you arrive, for instance. Taking into account time zones, it could be quite easy to find caches in the UK and USA in the same day.

[+Geocass&Andy750x]

Left the logs as they were with notes on so that any cachers planning to go for my caches were aware that they were indeed ok and that Groundspeak could see what had happened.

FWIW, Groundspeak and the reviewers can see deleted logs. So while it might be useful to leave the notes for the other seekers, you could have safely deleted the NA logs and bogus finds. In fact, that's the safest way to do it when reporting log issues to a reviewer or to Groundspeak, since it stops the author of the logs from going back in and editing them to "fluffy bunnies".

I did think the powers that be could have seen the deleted logs, however by leaving them there and asking the "real" cacher to delete them gave me confirmation that they were who I suspected!

[+drsolly]

I'm going to hold my hand up here and ask for comments...my other half is a distance truck driver, and sometimes gets to do a cache or 2 whilst parked up overnight. A few weeks ago he logged a cache nr London around the same time that I ran out for a FTF about 2 miles from home. Now both finds were genuine, logbooks signed, but I still feel a bit uneasy that someone might look at the logs and suspect armchair logging...I however don't do that coz the only person I would be cheating is me. Any thoughts?

 

I don't have a problem with that, things like that happen occasionally.

 

But it's been thought that some teams do a "divide and conquer" approach. In this, you have a team of two or more, and each member of the team goes out caching separately, and all the finds are logged under one name. I know that some people think that this is "not cricket". People have told me that some of the top cachers in the USA, work on this basis, I don't know.

 

Another variant on this, when two cachers team up, go out and do two series; one does series A, the other does series B, and each cacher signs the logs for both. Again, not cricket, really.

[+Mario McTavish]

There will always be armchair logging, or people logging finds on caches that they've not found (the one they missed whilst doing a series, for example). There's little I can do about it on caches I don't own, other than alert the CO and leave it up to them, but I do check my own caches and am quite willing to challenge/delete logs where there's been no evidence of a find. And I'm happy to continue doing so, no matter how many false 'finds' or 'archive requests' are submitted.

 

However I have been accused of falsifying entire log books merely to remove one persons name. Seems to be a bit of an extreme to go to to delete a log entry... Not to mention a rather colossal waste of my time.

 

With regards to the distance travelled in a day, I've gone from the south coast of England to Aberdeen/Inverurie (by car) easily in a day, flying would be much quicker. There would be nothing to prevent me finding a cache in the morning as I leave home (to ensure I keep up my continuous caching streak) but then finding more once in Scotland, or further afield.

 

I also have friends of mine that cache as a team. They used to live in the Bagshot area (since emigrated to Dubai), the wife worked with me and the husband used to escort deported people back to foreign countries. Quite often she'd take the dog for a walk and pick up caches in Bagshot whilst he was wandering around Egypt/Kenya/etc (even Venezuela once) doing caches as something to kill the time. I never saw that as a problem, although once they did get a rather irate mail from another cacher saying they shouldn't be claiming the FTF they picked up in Bagshot as they were also finding caches in Egypt on the same day, and it wasn't the right thing to do. They explained why and then ignored all further protesting emails. As I would have done.

[team tisri]

I'm going to hold my hand up here and ask for comments...my other half is a distance truck driver, and sometimes gets to do a cache or 2 whilst parked up overnight. A few weeks ago he logged a cache nr London around the same time that I ran out for a FTF about 2 miles from home. Now both finds were genuine, logbooks signed, but I still feel a bit uneasy that someone might look at the logs and suspect armchair logging...I however don't do that coz the only person I would be cheating is me. Any thoughts?

 

If you signed both logbooks they both count as a find. Any cache owner who suspects you didn't really find it can check the log book.

 

If you didn't sign the logbook for whatever reason you can confirm you were there with a detailed description of the location. I found one cache on my way to the airport at the end of a holiday and didn't have a pen, so I mailed the cache owner with enough detail that they were in no doubt that not only was I there but I found the cache. Another time I signed a log with a pencil that faded, but from my description of the container, the surroundings etc the owner could see that I'd found the original stage (it was an offset multi) as well as the final container.

 

If you logged a physical cache from your armchair then you won't have signed the log and won't know any detail of exactly where the cache was. If you managed to find the information to log a virtual from your armchair than it's the owners fault for making it easy enough to do that.

[+CnJnA]

All our caches have been genuine finds , and apart from a couple of very very soggy micro/nano logs we have signed the lot. In the case of them we took a photo on the camera phone then emailed the CO to ask for permission to log, which was granted. I work on the basis that if the log ain't signed then we don't log it, I know thats not how everyone plays but thats my way.

Anyone point me towards a link for a new nano log? I have some spare of other sizes but not those. Thanks for all the comments too.

[+BrixingtonPaddler]

All our caches have been genuine finds , and apart from a couple of very very soggy micro/nano logs we have signed the lot. In the case of them we took a photo on the camera phone then emailed the CO to ask for permission to log, which was granted. I work on the basis that if the log ain't signed then we don't log it, I know thats not how everyone plays but thats my way.

Anyone point me towards a link for a new nano log? I have some spare of other sizes but not those. Thanks for all the comments too.

 

http://www.geotees.co.uk/geocaching-accessories-2/pack-of-5-replacement-nano-cache-logs.html

[+Harry Dolphin]

I suspect another archair logger: Weyder

 

Logged 59 finds in new York, London & Latvia on the same day. I've sent a polite email asking for confirmation theye did find my cache.

 

mark

 

You can report this account to Groundspeak and they can deal with it in one swoop.

 

As previously noted, New York City, and most of New Jersey, were closed that day, due to Hurricane Irene. There was no public transportation. Subways, buses, tunnels, and trains were shut down. As were the NY/NJ airports. Driving was prohibited in the area where my caches are. The parks where many of these caches are located were closed, due to the hurricane. It would have been impossible for anyone to have found the caches that this cacher claims to have found. I checked the four caches of mine that this cacher claimed to have found. His/her signature did not appear in any of them. I have deleted those finds, and reported this cacher to Groundspeak.

[+MartyBartfast]

He also logged http://coord.info/GC2Q189 which is a bonus cache which requires the finding of 22 other caches in London - which he didn't log, looks like he was a busy chap on August 28th!

[+MTH]

That's the series I refered to in post #8. [Nice series - I've found a few and hope to get some more on my way to a meeting later today. I doubt I'll ever get the bonus though as I've lost the numbers! Perhaps I should just log it now ]

 

Not suprisingly there was no reply to my polite email so the log has been deleted.

 

Mark

[+tyke]

That being said, he might be a new cacher, who was on a business trip, and logged all his finds when he got back to Latvia, and did not change the found date. These finds might have been over the period of a month.

If you look at the stats for a couple of members of the Worthing Committee you'll see one had a best day with 202 caches and the other managed a magnificent 708.

[+Happy Humphrey]

But it's been thought that some teams do a "divide and conquer" approach. In this, you have a team of two or more, and each member of the team goes out caching separately, and all the finds are logged under one name. I know that some people think that this is "not cricket". People have told me that some of the top cachers in the USA, work on this basis, I don't know.

 

Another variant on this, when two cachers team up, go out and do two series; one does series A, the other does series B, and each cacher signs the logs for both. Again, not cricket, really.

Yes, I think that "not cricket" is the exact term. In the scheme of things it doesn't matter, but if you operate a similar system to the above and want to claim that you made all these finds; you know that it's a fib.

 

So your stats are compromised and become meaningless.

 

Which may, of course, not bother you in the slightest; but you then eliminate yourself from the "stats" game altogether. Which then begs the question of why you would want to claim a find of a cache that you've never been to, if you're also not interested in collecting cache find stats. Puzzling.

[+drdick&vick]

That being said, he might be a new cacher, who was on a business trip, and logged all his finds when he got back to Latvia, and did not change the found date. These finds might have been over the period of a month.

If you look at the stats for a couple of members of the Worthing Committee you'll see one had a best day with 202 caches and the other managed a magnificent 708.

The 202 was on a trip to do the Skeg to Ness caches and I know that when they cache as 'The Committee' they only ever log as those who are present. These guys do cover a lot of mileage when out.

[+Moote]

I'd just let them waste their time, why worry, the only thing which is affected is their electricity bill.

[keep the kids busy]

i to worry i might be called an armchair logger, we only took geocaching up a few weeks back and im up to 90 finds but i work all over the country each day so get to do random caches here there evrywhere in a day or if i get 5 mins to bunk work and hunt 1 or 2 out,

at the end of the day i enjoy hunting and dont see the point cheating as its only me im cheating and i really enjoy seeing the countryside now

[+thehalibutkid]

i to worry i might be called an armchair logger, we only took geocaching up a few weeks back and im up to 90 finds but i work all over the country each day so get to do random caches here there evrywhere in a day or if i get 5 mins to bunk work and hunt 1 or 2 out,

at the end of the day i enjoy hunting and dont see the point cheating as its only me im cheating and i really enjoy seeing the countryside now

 

The only way anyone is going to be able to call you and armchair logger is if when they look at the cache log your name isn't there. As long as you sign the logs you have nothing to fear (not even the reaper).

[+Original A1]

That being said, he might be a new cacher, who was on a business trip, and logged all his finds when he got back to Latvia, and did not change the found date. These finds might have been over the period of a month.

If you look at the stats for a couple of members of the Worthing Committee you'll see one had a best day with 202 caches and the other managed a magnificent 708.

Tyke - just a supposition... with those stats, could it be an amalgamation of several years' worth of caching on, say 5th May...., but different years? Or are you talking about one specific date?

 

If the latter, I suspect a cricket team's worth of cachers all finding different caches and logging under the same username...

 

(Does that make it cricket?!)