Cache found after bring archived ten years

January 16, 2012

I didn't even know I was watching this cache, and I'm guessing the logger didn't either:

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=b0c416ed-ff9c-40cb-a964-15613256563b

GC88 - Loudin Heights Cache

This cache was archived in 2001 due to it being in a National Park (I think.) I like how this guy finds such a historic cache and his log is just "TFTC".

Then I looked at his recent finds and saw he was logging a number of old archived caches the same way.

Sorry for this to be my first log here in years. Out just grabbed my attention and I had the need to share...

2.4k · January 16, 2012

Great. <_<

So the problem with this (and a thread that encourages people to do it) is that there are good reasons why a lot of caches are archived.

In that case, it most likely was archived since it was in a National Park.

National Parks don't allow them.

Some say that started because of a partially buried cache in Olympic National Park here in WA.

People here have been working with that park to try to get them to allow caches again.

If you get a lot of people searching for that cache, and others in National parks, it will derail all of the efforts of people trying to bring them back to national parks.

We're got to show our group has integrity and follow their rules, in order to be let back in.

That does not show integrity. Instead it will encourage them to never allow us in their parks, since we obviously don't follow their wishes, we can't be trusted with placement there.

Please don't hunt archived caches, unless you're sure it was just a lost container it was archived for.

Another reason caches are archived is that neighbors have complained or it turned out to be on private property.

Please only hunt archived caches if you're sure the only reason it was archived was due to a lost container or the owner moving out of state.

A lot of us want to give geocaching a good name, so we can be allowed in more places, not fewer.

3.1k · January 16, 2012

Please don't hunt archived caches, unless you're sure it was just a lost container it was archived for.

It's unlikely that he found this archived (and confiscated?) cache. He claims to have found caches in Oklahoma, California, Virginia, West Virginia, Nevada, and North Carolina during the past two days, while on a trip to Indiana.

The majority of the found caches are archived.

Edited January 16, 2012 by CanadianRockies

10.2k · January 16, 2012

Please don't hunt archived caches, unless you're sure it was just a lost container it was archived for.

It's unlikely that he found this archived (and confiscated?) cache. He claims to have found caches in Oklahoma, California, Virginia, West Virginia, Nevada, and North Carolina during the past two days, while on a trip to Indiana.

The majority of the found caches are archived.

Oh gosh. This is just a guy whose been caching for a few years who never thought he'd get caught. I'm embarrassed for him just looking at the finds, imagine how embarrassed he's going to be if he finds out he was caught. :huh:

3.6k · January 16, 2012

I guess he just doesn't care what others think and probably trying for a challenge. But when it comes with bragging rights it will fail when others research how fake he is.

3.7k · January 16, 2012

Ooh, what a great idea!! :laughing:

3.6k · January 16, 2012

Also noticed all of his archived caches that he recently archived. Seems he has anger issues. Something must have happend on the 12th for him to do that.

Edited January 16, 2012 by jellis

January 16, 2012

that log was apparently deleted. i just went to the old multi's cache page and there is no such log.

7.8k · January 16, 2012

I also noticed that he adopted out some of his caches, and then logged them as found before the adoption was even complete! Very cheesy...

3.2k · January 16, 2012

Great.

So the problem with this .......

National Parks don't allow them.

......

Not really true, but it does take a "perfect storm" to get one approved. I currently have 4 active caches in a National Park. The guidelines are here: www.nps.gov/policy/gpsguidance.pdf

10.2k · January 16, 2012

Also noticed all of his archived caches that he recently archived. Seems he has anger issues. Something must have happend on the 12th for him to do that.

Good catch. All his active caches were disabled (not archived) on the 12th. There's probably some local drama going on, anger at Groundspeak, etc, etc...

2k · January 16, 2012

some of those old caches may still be out there, that are archived...but obviously that guy was rigging the system. Nice to see those kind of things do get taken care of by GS when its obviously abused. I also see some of the other 2000 archived caches do get the occasional person saying found it. Makes you wonder how many are true.

Personally I do not see why a cache listing would get locked, even if archived, if the CO is still active and is not being abused and CO is allowing the finds. Had that happen to me once.

Edited January 16, 2012 by lamoracke

3.1k · January 16, 2012

We found a webcam a year or so ago that had not been logged in over 5 years. The webcam was down for a long time but then it came back, same website and spot and everything (though the link was a tiny small change, but same main site, just one different subcategory). Anyway, we logged the find with the CO's permission, but some time between then and now, it got locked. Wish I knew why, I mean, CO was okay with it and was a valid webcam find.

If it was a different webcam (even on the same website), then I can understand how Groundspeak might consider it to be a different webcam cache. And since new ones are no longer allowed and the owner is allowing what Groundspeak considers to be "bogus" finds, then I can understand why they might want to lock the cache page.

2k · January 16, 2012

We found a webcam a year or so ago that had not been logged in over 5 years. The webcam was down for a long time but then it came back, same website and spot and everything (though the link was a tiny small change, but same main site, just one different subcategory). Anyway, we logged the find with the CO's permission, but some time between then and now, it got locked. Wish I knew why, I mean, CO was okay with it and was a valid webcam find.

If it was a different webcam (even on the same website), then I can understand how Groundspeak might consider it to be a different webcam cache. And since new ones are no longer allowed and the owner is allowing what Groundspeak considers to be "bogus" finds, then I can understand why they might want to lock the cache page.

its the same camera, just the link was slightly different. Same spot. If GS are going to lock caches, whether its a webcam or a traditional or whatever, it would be nice to give a reason though. IMHO, as long as a cache has an owner checking logs, the cache is still there that the CO hid when it was active, and there is no obvious guideline being broken, personally I do not see the fuss finding archived caches. Most archived caches unless its a historical one or something won't get many people even noticing it.

Edited January 16, 2012 by lamoracke

5.7k · January 17, 2012

Great.

So the problem with this .......

National Parks don't allow them.

......

Not really true, but it does take a "perfect storm" to get one approved. I currently have 4 active caches in a National Park. The guidelines are here: www.nps.gov/policy/gpsguidance.pdf

Those are not the currant guidelines. Many new rules are being added and is still work in progress in many areas.

January 17, 2012

some of those old caches may still be out there, that are archived...but obviously that guy was rigging the system. Nice to see those kind of things do get taken care of by GS when its obviously abused. I also see some of the other 2000 archived caches do get the occasional person saying found it. Makes you wonder how many are true.

Personally I do not see why a cache listing would get locked, even if archived, if the CO is still active and is not being abused and CO is allowing the finds. Had that happen to me once.

Or twice. There is a CO who archives caches and tells people to keep logging them anyway. He does it to circumvent the proximity guideline.

3.6k · January 17, 2012

Are talking about someone is logging by permission or someone who thinks no one notices he is logging caches he never went to? I think he deleted his log on that cache because he found out he was caught armchair logging

January 17, 2012

some of those old caches may still be out there, that are archived...but obviously that guy was rigging the system. Nice to see those kind of things do get taken care of by GS when its obviously abused. I also see some of the other 2000 archived caches do get the occasional person saying found it. Makes you wonder how many are true.

Personally I do not see why a cache listing would get locked, even if archived, if the CO is still active and is not being abused and CO is allowing the finds. Had that happen to me once.

Or twice. There is a CO who archives caches and tells people to keep logging them anyway. He does it to circumvent the proximity guideline.

I got flummoxed by one of these proximity-pushers.

Found the archived cache, couldn't find the new one, and GS had figured it out and locked the old one before I could log it. Bummer!

Edited January 17, 2012 by aurght

7.9k · January 17, 2012

'Found' vs 'Logged'...big difference.

January 17, 2012

some of those old caches may still be out there, that are archived...but obviously that guy was rigging the system. Nice to see those kind of things do get taken care of by GS when its obviously abused. I also see some of the other 2000 archived caches do get the occasional person saying found it. Makes you wonder how many are true.

Personally I do not see why a cache listing would get locked, even if archived, if the CO is still active and is not being abused and CO is allowing the finds. Had that happen to me once.

Or twice. There is a CO who archives caches and tells people to keep logging them anyway. He does it to circumvent the proximity guideline.

I just grabbed a bunch of caches in a new series where the CO had recently archived another series along the same road. I had assumed the CO archived the original series to get a more consistant series (the new ones are almost all EGGs.) One of the last ones we found that day fit the above... I search, come up with a nano on a post. Nope. This one had too many logs. A bit of research and I found another cache that was archived and realized it was for that cache. Back for another look... there it is about a foot away on the same post! Another nano. We talked with CO and she said she thought this one was missing when she placed the new cache. Only problem is the old cache was in plain site while the new one was hidden.

Glad to see the log I mentioned was deleted. I wish I had a chance to find that cache myself-it was one of two caches in WV when I first looked at the site. I think it was archived by the time I found my first cache. We did make a trip out to that part of the state recently and found some newer caches.

January 17, 2012

There are certainly a number of people in this game "for the numbers" and another number of people who get starry-eyed and drooling over another person's stats but a little research will show who is lying, armchair logging, whatever. At least in my community that will get you shunned by other cachers in a heartbeat. We work very hard for the geocaching community and try to police our own as best we can. For those of us with a love for the sport, doing the right thing is a priority. We would not search for a cache in a National Park or any other area where they are not allowed, however.... Searching for an archived cache itself should not be a big problem. Most of the time one would be wasting time that they could spend finding a cache that really exists, provided the activity takes place in an area where geocaches are allowed by the property owner. I personally use GSAK and have a large database of geocaches in my area. In my early days of playing this game I didn't realize you could get "archived" logs to let you know when a cache goes out of play. My GPS holds 100s of thousands of caches so I initially loaded every cache in the state so I would be ready no matter where I was. That meant chasing archived caches that I didn't realize were archived until I got home to log them. It also meant DNFing in the field a lot of caches that wasted my time due my lack of knowledge at the time. Now that I know a bit more, I look at why the cache was archived before I remove it from my GPS. If it has a history of not being found, the CO states that he has retrieved the container and is voluntarily taking the cache out of play or the cache is in an off limits area, I remove it from my GPS. Sometimes, though, a cacher posts a "needs maintenance" log because there is no pencil in the cache, the log is full, or the travel bug is missing. Rookie errors but once that icon is posted the CO must answer it or eventually a reviewer archives the cache. I don't mind searching for these and will even replace the log. For me, the fun us in the search and being taken to a place I didn't know existed until the cache drew me in. I won't split hairs over a CO failing to maintain. Unfortunately, this game is riddled with prolific hiders who never touch their cache again after the initial hide. There are a lot of arguments for and against seeking an archived cache but in the end, it should be a personal choice. If the armchair logger chooses to log caches that don't exist it will become obvious, as it has, to all of us that that person is finding nothing and deserves no respect. If I had my way, I would have my numbers and stats hidden from everyone but my friends. Your numbers don't matter to me. Mine shouldn't matter to anyone. And the armchair logger's numbers will become useless pretty quick if no one can see them and bow down in awe at his "geocaching skill" Truth be told, would anyone go someplace they shouldn't be, either for safety or legal or whatever reason, if they couldn't own bragging rights?

January 17, 2012

I'm new to geocaching but what is the problem with searching for archived caches?? I mean was it archived due to the cache being missing, owner passing on, owner quit caching, property issues or someone just archived it and never went to pick up the container? I've talked to friends that say the 1st and last are usually the reasons. If you have it on good authority that the containers are still there why not try to located them and log them?

Now, I've spoken to several local cachers in my area and understand that armchair logging is frowned upon, is what this cacher did any different than someone voluntering to help out with an event and getting to log all the caches without actually finding them? IMHO no, it's the exact same thing. But I've heard through the grapevine of a very prominent cacher that does exactly that but gets no scrutiny or grief for their armchair logging or that if they can't 'find' the actual cache container while at a cache location, they simply pull out another container, sign the new log and drop it where they think it should be, not knowing that the actual container is really in place because they didn't actually find it. That too IMO would be considered armchair logging. Just sayin'

Edited January 17, 2012 by DVS14LIFE

January 17, 2012

Geocaching is a new game with very few rules. If someone wants to participate in armchair caching then I can't see any reason to interfere with their enjoyment. Many people play the game to try to find as many caches as possible and may be in competition with other cachers in this respect. There are some more twisted people who get their enjoyment from either taking coins or even the whole cache. To me caching is about finding a cache preferably one which requires a bit of effort to achieve. Caching can be anything you want it to be and what rules exist can easily be loopholed. If there are no rules then "cheating" can't exist.

3.6k · January 17, 2012

Hmm wonder who they are talking about? You shouldn't be listening to rumors and get the facts. I too know a very prominent cacher who does NOT armchair if we are talking about the same cacher.

5.3k · January 17, 2012

But I've heard through the grapevine of a very prominent cacher that does exactly that but gets no scrutiny or grief for their armchair logging or that if they can't 'find' the actual cache container while at a cache location, they simply pull out another container, sign the new log and drop it where they think it should be, not knowing that the actual container is really in place because they didn't actually find it. That too IMO would be considered armchair logging. Just sayin'

That's not "armchair" logging; it's what is known as "throwdown" logging. Armchair logging is where you don't even bother to leave the house. Throwdown logging is where if you don't find the cache you assume it is missing and leave a "replacement" cache.

Both are problems, but let's be clear in our language.

January 17, 2012

I don't see any problems with any of this. It is interesting that archived caches can still be found. Perhaps someone should go and remove them (are they considered litter?)

Regarding armchair caching I do not have any problems with this. If someone wishes to armchair cache and they enjoy this then why should I or anyone else object?

10.2k · January 17, 2012

Geocaching is a new game with very few rules. If someone wants to participate in armchair caching then I can't see any reason to interfere with their enjoyment. Many people play the game to try to find as many caches as possible and may be in competition with other cachers in this respect. There are some more twisted people who get their enjoyment from either taking coins or even the whole cache. To me caching is about finding a cache preferably one which requires a bit of effort to achieve. Caching can be anything you want it to be and what rules exist can easily be loopholed. If there are no rules then "cheating" can't exist.

Toz, you didn't tell me you recruited your Brother into Geocaching.

Fact is motnahp, Groundspeak has made it very clear that "armchair logging" is one of those very few rules. Their agin it. :lol:

Edit: By the way Motnahp, when are you actually going to go out and find a Geocache? :huh:

Edited January 17, 2012 by Mr.Yuck

10.2k · January 17, 2012

Are talking about someone is logging by permission or someone who thinks no one notices he is logging caches he never went to? I think he deleted his log on that cache because he found out he was caught armchair logging

The cacher who logged the cache in the OP self-deleted their find log within an hour or two. They obviously heard about this thread, seeing as the owner of the archived cache hasn't logged in since 2007. Now no one, including the original poster, remembers who he was, do you? This seemed to be an obvious case of a "ticked off cacher" or a "did it as a joke and doesn't care" armchair logger. Clearly not a numbers grabber. So move along people, nothing to see here. Both literally and figuratively. :lol:

2.2k · January 17, 2012

I don't see any problems with any of this. It is interesting that archived caches can still be found. Perhaps someone should go and remove them (are they considered litter?)

I have gone and removed caches where the owner has archived them weeks earlier and then contacted the CO asking if they would like me to send them their cache. None of them has ever responded, likely because they are embarrassed that someone pointed out they never picked up their geolitter.

There is a debate around whether or not this (picking up archived caches) is acceptable or not. Some see it as cleaning up after ourselves whereas others will point out that just because a cache is not active on geocaching.com doesn't mean it isn't active on some other geocaching site. (Around here that has never been an issue.)

Regarding armchair caching I do not have any problems with this. If someone wishes to armchair cache and they enjoy this then why should I or anyone else object?

I object because it creates a false impression that a cache is present and findable when it may not be the case.

An example I saw in our local area:

Cache had a long string of Finds with no DNFs. Suddenly the DNFs started to roll in, one after the other. The CO sees this and disabled the cache. A cacher, known in our area for bogus logs, comes along and logs a Find. The CO saw the log, believed the cache is present and re-enabled it. The result? Another string of DNFs. Cache owner went out and couldn't find the cache and then Archived it. How many cachers had to waste their time because someone wanted another smiley and knew that, since the cache was likely missing anyway, no one would ever be able to prove if he signed the log or not?

January 17, 2012

Hmm wonder who they are talking about? You shouldn't be listening to rumors and get the facts. I too know a very prominent cacher who does NOT armchair if we are talking about the same cacher.

If it is the same cacher we are talking about, then yes they have done that. I've spoken to several members of the event committee and they have confirmed that the individual in question did in fact try to log those caches and the logs were deleted after confirmation that the individual did not physically sign the logs on any of the 50+ caches. That sounds like armchair logging at it's best and that individual should know better being in the position they're in.

3.6k · January 17, 2012

Are talking about someone is logging by permission or someone who thinks no one notices he is logging caches he never went to? I think he deleted his log on that cache because he found out he was caught armchair logging

The cacher who logged the cache in the OP self-deleted their find log within an hour or two. They obviously heard about this thread, seeing as the owner of the archived cache hasn't logged in since 2007. Now no one, including the original poster, remembers who he was, do you? This seemed to be an obvious case of a "ticked off cacher" or a "did it as a joke and doesn't care" armchair logger. Clearly not a numbers grabber. So move along people, nothing to see here. Both literally and figuratively.

See my other thread about Virtual Events and tell me again. This cacher has been also logging Virtuals I am sure he probably never left the state for as well as these events.

Edited January 17, 2012 by jellis

3.6k · January 17, 2012

Hmm wonder who they are talking about? You shouldn't be listening to rumors and get the facts. I too know a very prominent cacher who does NOT armchair if we are talking about the same cacher.

If it is the same cacher we are talking about, then yes they have done that. I've spoken to several members of the event committee and they have confirmed that the individual in question did in fact try to log those caches and the logs were deleted after confirmation that the individual did not physically sign the logs on any of the 50+ caches. That sounds like armchair logging at it's best and that individual should know better being in the position they're in.

And you virtually went to one of the events?

Edited January 17, 2012 by jellis

3.6k · January 17, 2012

I don't see any problems with any of this. It is interesting that archived caches can still be found. Perhaps someone should go and remove them (are they considered litter?)

Regarding armchair caching I do not have any problems with this. If someone wishes to armchair cache and they enjoy this then why should I or anyone else object?

Are you a cacher or a Sock Puppet? You know it's against the Forum to log in as a sock puppet.

January 17, 2012

The event I was talking about the 50+ caches was where I was really introduced to geocaching. I've had a profile page for a few years but never really got into it until just recently. So yes, I have spoken to those event planners and got it right from the horses mouth about the armchair logging by your idol.

Edited January 17, 2012 by DVS14LIFE

January 17, 2012

Toz, you didn't tell me you recruited your Brother into Geocaching.

Fact is motnahp, Groundspeak has made it very clear that "armchair logging" is one of those very few rules. Their agin it. :lol:

Edit: By the way Motnahp, when are you actually going to go out and find a Geocache? :huh:

I love geocaching but I can't say the same about Groundspeak. Groundspeak has produced many rules and guidelines very few, if any, work. Take one of the basic rules that caches should not be buried. The vast majority of caches I have found have been buried to some extent.

Some people may not be able to get out to find a cache. Are they to be deprived of taking part in this game especially where puzzle caches are concerned. I have a few caches suitable for people in wheelchairs but I doubt if they could actually retrieve the caches on their own.

I can't really understand this agressive attitude towards armchair cachers. I certainly hold no animosity towards them.

I don't understand the question about when I am going out to find a geocache. Perhaps you mean why do I not log my finds. That is really requires a new topic,

January 17, 2012

Hmm wonder who they are talking about? You shouldn't be listening to rumors and get the facts. I too know a very prominent cacher who does NOT armchair if we are talking about the same cacher.

If it is the same cacher we are talking about, then yes they have done that. I've spoken to several members of the event committee and they have confirmed that the individual in question did in fact try to log those caches and the logs were deleted after confirmation that the individual did not physically sign the logs on any of the 50+ caches. That sounds like armchair logging at it's best and that individual should know better being in the position they're in.

And you virtually went to one of the events?

You probably shouldn't speculate on things you don't know about unless you were actually at that event to see me, because you weren't. Not that I need to explain myself, but I do travel quite a bit for work and it takes me to a lot of different places. I don't get the opportunity to cache as much as I'd like to but I try to make due.

3.6k · January 17, 2012

Hmm wonder who they are talking about? You shouldn't be listening to rumors and get the facts. I too know a very prominent cacher who does NOT armchair if we are talking about the same cacher.

If it is the same cacher we are talking about, then yes they have done that. I've spoken to several members of the event committee and they have confirmed that the individual in question did in fact try to log those caches and the logs were deleted after confirmation that the individual did not physically sign the logs on any of the 50+ caches. That sounds like armchair logging at it's best and that individual should know better being in the position they're in.

And you virtually went to one of the events?

You probably shouldn't speculate on things you don't know about unless you were actually at that event to see me, because you weren't. Not that I need to explain myself, but I do travel quite a bit for work and it takes me to a lot of different places. I don't get the opportunity to cache as much as I'd like to but I try to make due.

That was a question wasn't it or are you being defensive?

January 17, 2012

Hmm wonder who they are talking about? You shouldn't be listening to rumors and get the facts. I too know a very prominent cacher who does NOT armchair if we are talking about the same cacher.

If it is the same cacher we are talking about, then yes they have done that. I've spoken to several members of the event committee and they have confirmed that the individual in question did in fact try to log those caches and the logs were deleted after confirmation that the individual did not physically sign the logs on any of the 50+ caches. That sounds like armchair logging at it's best and that individual should know better being in the position they're in.

And you virtually went to one of the events?

You probably shouldn't speculate on things you don't know about unless you were actually at that event to see me, because you weren't. Not that I need to explain myself, but I do travel quite a bit for work and it takes me to a lot of different places. I don't get the opportunity to cache as much as I'd like to but I try to make due.

That was a question wasn't it or are you being defensive?

Answered already by the previous comment! Tyvm

3.1k · January 17, 2012

If someone wishes to armchair cache and they enjoy this then why should I or anyone else object?

Because Groundspeak considers armchair caching "Found It" logs to be "bogus" finds. According to MissJenn, from Groundspeak: "Stating that you must visit the location is not necessary as this is an implicit requirement..."

Goundspeak has been known to lock the accounts of armchair finders and lock caches where owners allow armchair finds.

3.6k · January 17, 2012

Hmm wonder who they are talking about? You shouldn't be listening to rumors and get the facts. I too know a very prominent cacher who does NOT armchair if we are talking about the same cacher.

If it is the same cacher we are talking about, then yes they have done that. I've spoken to several members of the event committee and they have confirmed that the individual in question did in fact try to log those caches and the logs were deleted after confirmation that the individual did not physically sign the logs on any of the 50+ caches. That sounds like armchair logging at it's best and that individual should know better being in the position they're in.

And you virtually went to one of the events?

You probably shouldn't speculate on things you don't know about unless you were actually at that event to see me, because you weren't. Not that I need to explain myself, but I do travel quite a bit for work and it takes me to a lot of different places. I don't get the opportunity to cache as much as I'd like to but I try to make due.

That was a question wasn't it or are you being defensive?

Answered already by the previous comment! Tyvm

Are you a SPA?

January 17, 2012

Hmm wonder who they are talking about? You shouldn't be listening to rumors and get the facts. I too know a very prominent cacher who does NOT armchair if we are talking about the same cacher.

If it is the same cacher we are talking about, then yes they have done that. I've spoken to several members of the event committee and they have confirmed that the individual in question did in fact try to log those caches and the logs were deleted after confirmation that the individual did not physically sign the logs on any of the 50+ caches. That sounds like armchair logging at it's best and that individual should know better being in the position they're in.

And you virtually went to one of the events?

You probably shouldn't speculate on things you don't know about unless you were actually at that event to see me, because you weren't. Not that I need to explain myself, but I do travel quite a bit for work and it takes me to a lot of different places. I don't get the opportunity to cache as much as I'd like to but I try to make due.

That was a question wasn't it or are you being defensive?

Answered already by the previous comment! Tyvm

Are you a SPA?

Not sure what a SPA is?

14k · January 17, 2012

I don't see any problems with any of this. It is interesting that archived caches can still be found. Perhaps someone should go and remove them (are they considered litter?)

Regarding armchair caching I do not have any problems with this. If someone wishes to armchair cache and they enjoy this then why should I or anyone else object?

Are you a cacher or a Sock Puppet? You know it's against the Forum to log in as a sock puppet.

Or even a teppuP kcoS.

January 17, 2012

I object because it creates a false impression that a cache is present and findable when it may not be the case.

An example I saw in our local area:

Cache had a long string of Finds with no DNFs. Suddenly the DNFs started to roll in, one after the other. The CO sees this and disabled the cache. A cacher, known in our area for bogus logs, comes along and logs a Find. The CO saw the log, believed the cache is present and re-enabled it. The result? Another string of DNFs. Cache owner went out and couldn't find the cache and then Archived it. How many cachers had to waste their time because someone wanted another smiley and knew that, since the cache was likely missing anyway, no one would ever be able to prove if he signed the log or not?

I really like your quote "Caching for the experience, not the numbers" I wish more cachers shared your ethics to which I also aspire. I tend not to read the logs of other cachers as many of them contain information which "spoil" the cache for me. However, my eye is sometimes drawn to a lot of DFNs which only increases my desire to find the cache. I will not go out deliberately to find an archived cache but if I know of one in the vicinity of a target cache then I will have a look for it.

10.2k · January 17, 2012

I object because it creates a false impression that a cache is present and findable when it may not be the case.

An example I saw in our local area:

Cache had a long string of Finds with no DNFs. Suddenly the DNFs started to roll in, one after the other. The CO sees this and disabled the cache. A cacher, known in our area for bogus logs, comes along and logs a Find. The CO saw the log, believed the cache is present and re-enabled it. The result? Another string of DNFs. Cache owner went out and couldn't find the cache and then Archived it. How many cachers had to waste their time because someone wanted another smiley and knew that, since the cache was likely missing anyway, no one would ever be able to prove if he signed the log or not?

I really like your quote "Caching for the experience, not the numbers" I wish more cachers shared your ethics to which I also aspire. I tend not to read the logs of other cachers as many of them contain information which "spoil" the cache for me. However, my eye is sometimes drawn to a lot of DFNs which only increases my desire to find the cache. I will not go out deliberately to find an archived cache but if I know of one in the vicinity of a target cache then I will have a look for it.

I didn't quote your other post where you adressed me, as the quotes were broken, and I didn't want to make a bigger mess. Which I probably would have. What a couple people are saying is it is against forum guidelines to post with a sock puppet. Under the name you're posting with, you have 0 finds and 0 hides, and have been a member for 2 months. And the only thing that made some of us suspicious there is we see the join date in the forums. Yes, you have to click to your profile to see the 0 finds and 0 hides. Is the account you don't log finds with a longer established account?

Doesn't bother me in the least, but we see 0 find 0 hide sock puppet accounts posting or starting threads, oh, I don't know, at least once a week.

Edited January 17, 2012 by Mr.Yuck

10.2k · January 17, 2012

Are talking about someone is logging by permission or someone who thinks no one notices he is logging caches he never went to? I think he deleted his log on that cache because he found out he was caught armchair logging

The cacher who logged the cache in the OP self-deleted their find log within an hour or two. They obviously heard about this thread, seeing as the owner of the archived cache hasn't logged in since 2007. Now no one, including the original poster, remembers who he was, do you? This seemed to be an obvious case of a "ticked off cacher" or a "did it as a joke and doesn't care" armchair logger. Clearly not a numbers grabber. So move along people, nothing to see here. Both literally and figuratively.

See my other thread about Virtual Events and tell me again. This cacher has been also logging Virtuals I am sure he probably never left the state for as well as these events.

Yeah, I said I and everyone else had forgotten who it was, but I did in fact notice it was the same guy who logged those Ustream events, and you could find him there. I didn't want to post in the other thread, I really don't want to be a part of calling someone out personally, and piling on. I also still don't think it's a numbers grab, but more of a rebellion thing.

3.6k · January 17, 2012

I totally agree now

3.6k · January 17, 2012

Thanks Sol seaker. I should keep remembering this. They only cheat themselves not us.

January 17, 2012

My first forum post and it's unfortunate that it has to be on this subject. The acronym MYOB comes to mind here. If it is not you armchair logging or it isn't your cache its being done to what business is it of yours? It seems to me that if you have that much extra time to police other people's activities, you have too much time on your hands. Remember that when you point the finger at others, there are usually 3 of them pointing back at you. That includes me with this post, so on that note, I'll go back to minding my own business and leave you guys to yours.

Peace to all of you and best of everything in all of your endeavours whatever they may be. Remember that this is a light and fun activity. Anyone who is angry is obviously not having fun and should really look at changing the way they are doing things or quit caching altogether. This is just my humble opinion.

January 17, 2012

I object because it creates a false impression that a cache is present and findable when it may not be the case.

An example I saw in our local area:

Cache had a long string of Finds with no DNFs. Suddenly the DNFs started to roll in, one after the other. The CO sees this and disabled the cache. A cacher, known in our area for bogus logs, comes along and logs a Find. The CO saw the log, believed the cache is present and re-enabled it. The result? Another string of DNFs. Cache owner went out and couldn't find the cache and then Archived it. How many cachers had to waste their time because someone wanted another smiley and knew that, since the cache was likely missing anyway, no one would ever be able to prove if he signed the log or not?

I really like your quote "Caching for the experience, not the numbers" I wish more cachers shared your ethics to which I also aspire. I tend not to read the logs of other cachers as many of them contain information which "spoil" the cache for me. However, my eye is sometimes drawn to a lot of DFNs which only increases my desire to find the cache. I will not go out deliberately to find an archived cache but if I know of one in the vicinity of a target cache then I will have a look for it.

I didn't quote your other post where you adressed me, as the quotes were broken, and I didn't want to make a bigger mess. Which I probably would have. What a couple people are saying is it is against forum guidelines to post with a sock puppet. Under the name you're posting with, you have 0 finds and 0 hides, and have been a member for 2 months. And the only thing that made some of us suspicious there is we see the join date in the forums. Yes, you have to click to your profile to see the 0 finds and 0 hides. Is the account you don't log finds with a longer established account?

Doesn't bother me in the least, but we see 0 find 0 hide sock puppet accounts posting or starting threads, oh, I don't know, at least once a week.

Sorry, I did not understand the term “sock puppet”. Yes, I am using a different identity from my geocaching identities. It is not intended to deceive anyone but to protect me. When I first started caching I tried to log on to the forum and was asked to register. I registered with a completely different name from my caching name. I now have more than one caching name and I suppose I must have a couple of forum names although I am not sure if I can remember the password for the original name. This is really irrelevant to the topic on hand or any such topic but since, it seems to concern some people, I am happy to discuss it and have started a thread on this specific topic.

3.1k · January 17, 2012

If it is not you armchair logging or it isn't your cache its being done to what business is it of yours?

Perhaps people are appreciative of Groundspeak's efforts to promote geocaching and wish to assist them in those endeavors. Groundspeak considers armchair caching "Found It" logs to be "bogus" finds. According to MissJenn, from Groundspeak: "Stating that you must visit the location is not necessary as this is an implicit requirement..."

Cache found after bring archived ten years

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

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