Jump to content

I'm at the point I think all Virtual caches should be archived.


Recommended Posts

This is a direct copy-paste from a local virtual. I was looking up my log and saw this. NO LOGS HAVE BEEN EDITED OR REMOVED other then caching names deleted. I own 2 virtual's and I get 4-5 fake logs per week.

Found it Found it

09/26/2006

 

Hi Ghosthunter,

Perhaps I will be able to see the real thing one day. This place is not very far from Old Orchard Beach, and everyone knows that the inhabitants of Quebec like to go there on holiday.

AndréL.

 

Salutations Ghosthunter,

Peut-être je pourrai voir la vrai chose un jour car cet endroit n'est pas très loin de Old Orchard Beach. Et tout le monde sait que les Québécois aiment y aller en vacances.

AndréL.

 

Found it Found it

09/25/2006

 

Found it! This was very good virtual cache. Recommend this for all geocachers in the world! Thanks!

othiporos ; )

 

Found it Found it

09/25/2006

 

Found it quite quickly

dodetrexer #3 armchair

 

Found it Found it

09/25/2006

 

Found a pic of this on one of my software jackets!!

View Log peanut butter & jam

 

Found it Found it

09/24/2006

 

Very interesting cache, would like to see it in person though. Thanks for the cache!!

View Log

 

Found it Found it

09/23/2006

 

Found this one after a little search on the web.

Seppukki

 

Found it Found it

09/23/2006

 

A virtual cache at its best! I love findings of this kind. Indeed, I did not expect such an object at this spot – but it is real and can be visited. A few thousand miles prevent me to make an immediate experience. Of course I will remember it as one of the primary destinations for a journey in the Northwest. Thank you very much for the great cache idea!

 

Best wishes from Germany,

 

Found it Found it

09/21/2006

 

What a crazy thing.At my next trip I surely go to see this real.Thank you for this discover.

View Log

 

Found it Found it

09/20/2006

 

Great idea - this is now on my list of things to see before I die. TFTC - Message sent.

View Log

 

Found it Found it

09/20/2006

 

Far from home: "W 5400.9km from your home coordinates"

 

Couch caching in the Netherlands.

 

Thanks for letting me log this one!

 

Found it Found it

09/19/2006

 

What in the world ? World Wide Web will tell you. I hope tho do the physical cache someday, intriging place.

thepoages

 

Found it Found it

05/29/2006

 

Very cool, we love to travel....maybe we can catch this one sometime! Always neat to know of such wonderful locations. TFTC thepoages (email on the way)

View Log

 

Found it Found it

05/29/2006

 

Oh, that place is very amazing. Really a great Location. We found the right URL and learned so much about this object. Thanks for that Cache and the very good idea!!!

 

Best wishes from Essen / Germany to you and your family,

 

Found it Found it

05/28/2006

 

Fantastic. It's a pity living so far away from that. But when I ever come to America I will visit this. Thanks for that cache! And many Greetings from Germany.

 

Found it Found it

05/28/2006

 

It's great!

Thanks for Cache!

 

Best wishes to Gosthunter and his team,

'ThoWo' (Frankfurt, Germany)

#723

 

Found it Found it

05/27/2006

 

Great spot..TFTC

View Log

 

Found it Found it

05/27/2006

Stuck at home with 2 sick kids. Decided to get a caching fix while they slept. This is a great place, thanks for placing a virtual for me to find. My have to make a trip out to see it some time. Thanks again.

Jul

 

Found it Found it

05/26/2006

 

Amazing, truly amazing...

Thanks for the swift reply.

 

Found it Found it

05/26/2006

 

I think the cache points to a very interesting place! I would like to visit it some day!

 

Thanks and greetings from Germany

spottler

 

Found it Found it

05/24/2006

 

I think I finally figured it out. E-mail sent to try to confirm what I think it is.

View Log Aluna und die Schatzsucher

 

Found it Found it

05/24/2006

 

It seems very interesting. Hope I can see it one day. Thanks a lot for this cache.

 

Greetings from Germany!

 

Aluna und die Schatzsucher

View Log

 

Bonnie.

 

Found it Found it

05/24/2006

 

This must be the furthest cache from my house I have ever done.

 

Thanks for the interesting information. Its amazing what you can find out with a little google.

 

TFTC

 

Found it Found it

05/23/2006

 

Hi,

 

really amazing thing that is. We hope you could have one for your front yard!

It seems that we will not have the possibility to get there in nearer future, but maybe one day?

TFTC,

 

Sabrina and Rainer

#120

 

Found it Found it

05/23/2006

 

Unfortunately I could visit it only virtually.

Thanks for that interessting cache!

Greetings from Germany!

View Log

 

Found it Found it

05/23/2006

 

This is great for the interested. Hope to make it there someday, over the rainbow.

Thanks Turtletoes and gang

 

 

This is only a small sample of the 4,500+ logs.

Edited by Downy288
Link to comment
If your ADHD is so bad, how did you focus to reply?

My ADHD varies depending on the circumstances. It's a very good excuse for getting out of just about anything and no one's figured it out yet, so please don't give the secret away.

 

A log is only fake the poster tries to present it as real. Since all these finders said they never visited the location, the logs aren't fake at all.

Edited by Ambient_Skater
Link to comment

Everyone's entitled to their own opinion.

 

My opinion is that it's not a problem with virtuals, but rather a problem with absentee owners.

 

People armchair traditional caches too, but I don't see anyone calling for the archival of all traditionals.

Link to comment

I think the name "Virtual" is associated with a different experience (meaning) for todays computer users. I wonder if any of them get that they have to actually visit. I think they don't. May be adding to the confusion.

 

I had a new cacher tell me that there was this type of cache (Virtual) that you could log online without having to leave the house. Told me it was excellent for keeping a streak alive. I didn't have the heart to explain it to them. I just said " I hope that works out for ya".:blink:

Link to comment

All the virtual caches I've found required a picture at the site or answers to a set of questions that needed to be emailed to the CO. 99% of the time I've received the response from the CO acknowledging that I met the requirement. I've found the virtual caches in Missouri have taken me to many of the historical sites or other really cool places. As a transplant to the state, it's been a great way to learn about the area and it's history. I see no problem with virtual caches. If you think someone is abusing a cache, state you case to the area reviewer and see what they think.

Link to comment

I don't see the caches as the problem, but rather cachers that don't understand that the virtual part is the cache, not the visit, and cache owners who don't straighten this out and delete fake logs.

 

I'm sure a lot of cache owners let it ride, as to not cause problems. I don't have a problem with that so much, but they should at least toughen logging requirements on the cache, since people are obviously finding the needed info on the web.

 

I think the remaining virtuals are essential.

We've got virtual caches in the nearby national park where they take the place of caches that would have people walking in fragile areas.

Those virtuals get people to a beautiful place that their children may have never seen.

A few people should not be allowed to ruin the fun of many.

Don't let them ruin your fun either.

Link to comment

I also can't help but notice that the snippet of log you posted was from a short time period in 2006, and most of the logs are from cachers in Germany. Is this really a representative snip of the log, or did you grab this particular part because of so many sofa-logs? I'm guessing that someone in Germany during this time period found it, thought this was an okay way to log a "virtual" and passed it out to all of his friends to log as well. I could be wrong though. It's happened before!

Link to comment

Any virtual that the log can be done by an armchair cacher wasn't setup right in the first place. There is always a question about the area that the cacher would have to answer that couldn't be found on the internet. I've done several that I could have gotten the information about the actual virtual off the net, but to be able to answer the CO's question I would have to have been there.

Link to comment

What's the GC number for this cache? Sounds like an interesting one that I need to check out!

 

If it's the one that I think it is, most of the questions *could* be answered using the web but it also asked for a photo in front of a unique object. I actually stopped and visited the location a few years ago and found a couple of traditional caches nearby. For some reason I didn't have virtuals in the caches along a route PQ I did for the trip, didn't realize that there was a virtual at the location, so didn't take the obligatory photo of the object with my GPS shown in the photo so I didn't post a "found it" log on the cache.

Link to comment

I don't see the caches as the problem, but rather cachers that don't understand that the virtual part is the cache, not the visit, and cache owners who don't straighten this out and delete fake logs.

On the Internet, the term "virtual" means "computer-simulated". So Virtual is yet another poorly chosen Groundspeak term, if the idea is to visit the spot in person, NOT just using one's imagination.

 

Yet it must be more than just an issue of a language barrier, since we also see "virtual" logging of Trackables, when there is no "Virtual" version of those.

Link to comment

These logs are either from cachers who completely misunderstand what a Virtual is, or found a loophole (info can be obtained off the Web + a CO who doesn't care that you didn't visit the site). That CO should delete those logs with a polite note to the "finder" that since it was obvious they did not visit the site the log would not be allowed.

 

Questions to be answered for a Virtual should be information that can only be obtained at the site. A photo of yourself or at least your GPS at GZ could also suffice. Heck, the question could even be totally unrelated to the actual cache, like what's the name of the donut shop across the street. That information would be unlikely to be obtained on the Internet (although Google Street View is an amazing thing...)

 

Now, having said that, I have used the web to get answers for a Virtual before, but that was after I had in fact visited the site. We saw the statue but didn't get all the info needed at the time so I did a little research to get the correct answers. In that case it could be easily proved that I was in the area because we also got logged several Tradituonals in that area (French Quarter in New Orleans) the same day, so I didn't feel bad about that one.

Link to comment

Well I've done one virtual answered the questions emailed the owner and then eventually logged it after about a month of no response...it was a fun little cache but irritating I never got a response from my emails

 

You usually won't get a response from the owner. Send the info and log the find, if they have a problem with your answers they should contact you. Most of the time they're not that concerned about it (or may not even be in the game anymore). Count the find and don't sweat it.

Link to comment

I don't see the caches as the problem, but rather cachers that don't understand that the virtual part is the cache, not the visit, and cache owners who don't straighten this out and delete fake logs.

On the Internet, the term "virtual" means "computer-simulated". So Virtual is yet another poorly chosen Groundspeak term, if the idea is to visit the spot in person, NOT just using one's imagination.

 

Yet it must be more than just an issue of a language barrier, since we also see "virtual" logging of Trackables, when there is no "Virtual" version of those.

 

I suspect a significant portion of them know exactly what they are doing.

Link to comment

many virtuals are quite legit and have owners who give a care, so if you are so in a tizzy about a bogus particular virtual, fine, but don't cast aspersions on every virtual out there. Just did a virtual yesterday which had only like 55 finds and an obvious owner who would delete any bogus logs in a heartbeat.

Link to comment

I had a new cacher tell me that there was this type of cache (Virtual) that you could log online without having to leave the house. Told me it was excellent for keeping a streak alive. I didn't have the heart to explain it to them.

 

I think it is better to explain how it should be done, especially when they are new. Peer support is good for this game.

Edited by Team Sagefox
Link to comment

many virtuals are quite legit and have owners who give a care, so if you are so in a tizzy about a bogus particular virtual, fine, but don't cast aspersions on every virtual out there. Just did a virtual yesterday which had only like 55 finds and an obvious owner who would delete any bogus logs in a heartbeat.

I agree, I have one virtual left and if you don't follow the logging requirments you will be deleted. I have gotten a reply for most all of the virtuals I have found, last one a day or so ago. There is one virtual I visited years before it was a cache even have a picture of the object, but don't have the necessary information so no find.

 

edited for spelling

Edited by captnemo
Link to comment

Instead of a rant here a simple NA log would solve the problem quietly. I think a solution to the problem would be more satisfying than a public rant. Actn not words.

 

Why penalize those that know how virtuals are supposed to work (that's you're supposed to visit the location and meet the logging requirements before logging it as found) and play the game with integrity by removing what may be a unique cache?

Link to comment
If your ADHD is so bad, how did you focus to reply?

My ADHD varies depending on the circumstances. It's a very good excuse for getting out of just about anything and no one's figured it out yet, so please don't give the secret away.

 

A log is only fake the poster tries to present it as real. Since all these finders said they never visited the location, the logs aren't fake at all.

Directly from the Lily Pad:

Couch Potato Logs Research from your sofa is not Virtual Cache hunting

Link to comment

I suspect a significant portion of them know exactly what they are doing.

 

That may be. However historically there are reasons for this. Originally the instructions for logging virtual caches simply said you needed to comply with the requirements on the cache page. If the requirement was to answer a question then you answered the question and logged the cache. Only later were the guidelines changed to say you needed to visit the location as well.

 

And these guidelines have traditionally been somewhat hidden. If you never hid your own cache, it's was possible to have never seen the guidelines. (And we all know that even if you hid a cache and checked that you had read and understood the guidelines what that means <_<).

 

Until recently these guideline were available only in English and cachers whose native language was not English may not have bother reading them or may not have comprehended all the nuances. In Germany, for example, the concept of logging virtuals where you could comply with the requirements on that cache page without a visit had become commonplace. So even when the guidelines were changed, people were more likely to follow common practice and continue doing so.

 

It wasn't until several years after the logs in the OP example were written, that Miss Jenn posted the famous Couch Potato Logs post. This clarified Groundspeak policy and set the ground for reviewers to archive virtual caches where the owners allowed couch potato logs. A German version is still pinned in the German speaking section of the forums.

 

Since that time the number of couch potato logs has fallen dramatically. (Of course the number virtual that allow this has fallen as well, with many being archived). I find it strange that the OP brought up this topic and posts logs from 2006 to show this is taking place. I don't doubt that there are still a few people who do couch potato caching, and a few virtuals where the the owner is allowing this (or more likely that the owner is no longer active to check the logs). Per Groundspeak policy these caches are subject to archival.

 

Now for my opinion.

 

I don't see why some people get their knickers in a twist because of an occasional couch potato log on a virtual. It shouldn't stop anyone who really wants to visit the virtual cache and logging it "legitimately" from doing so. (On this point I disagree with Grounspeak's policy of archiving the cache).

 

Some people want to make the find count mean something other than just a count of the number of find, attended, and photo taken logs someone has entered. They want this to reflect their personal definition of a find. In a few case, the people whose knickers are bunched up, have gotten Groundspeak to add some "Logging Guidelines". These are written in language directed at finders, but ultimately they represent restrictions on what cache owners can or cannot do. Generally they are meant to allow cache owners to delete logs in certain situations. It is when Groundspeak and the reviewers use these guidelines to archive caches where a cache owner has failed to delete a log, that I begin to wonder who is the actual owner of the cache and who is is now being pressured to enforce someone else's definition of a find with the threat of archival.

Link to comment

Instead of a rant here a simple NA log would solve the problem quietly. I think a solution to the problem would be more satisfying than a public rant. Actn not words.

 

Why penalize those that know how virtuals are supposed to work (that's you're supposed to visit the location and meet the logging requirements before logging it as found) and play the game with integrity by removing what may be a unique cache?

 

Well, it certainly is a spectacular spot! Well worth a Virtual Cache. If memory serves correctly (which is always a concern these days) this cache was archived for permitting couch logging. After much debate, it was revived with the requirement for a photo. (This was after I found it.) As great as the spot is, if the CO can not maintain it properly, then, perhaps, it should be archived. And that would be very sad. More because GS would not permit another, maintained, Virtual in its spot.

I can think of a number of Virtuals that I have found, where the CO has not been active, maintaining, for several years.

 

Edited to note that OP is quoting 6-year-old logs! That situation was handled 4 years ago!

Edited by Harry Dolphin
Link to comment

Why do you care so much?

It does nothing to hinder your ability to enjoy the game.

If it does you have more pressing problems to attend to.

 

Actually for those who enjoy virtuals it does hinder their ability to enjoy the game. Groundspeak has been archiving "unmaintained" virtuals for several years. When there are numerous "armchair" logs, itt tells Groundspeak that the owner is no longer actively maintaining that virtual and the virtual is archived. We've lost dozens of virtuals that way.

Link to comment

Hi Downy288.

I am the adoptive owner of that cache. The original owner, Ghosthunter, is no longer able to handle the logging verifications due to health problems, and that is a personal matter. I agreed to take care of it for him and Groundspeak gave us written permission for this to happen. I also decided I would not do any editing to any logs that were made prior to me adopting the cache, and I thought hard about it. I contact each and every logger, especially if I don't get the verification email. I have also saved each and every email containing each and every photograph and answer. I will not touch logs that were prior to me taking over the cache.

Ghosthunter is a very nice person who could not take care of it anymore, and I am not going to change the history, true or false, of the cache when he was the owner. He has deleted many a log, believe me. It's not his fault so many choose not to actually play the game.

But thank you for your concern. If you have any further concerns about it, please let me know. But I'm not touching his history. It's not mine to do so. But hey, 25 out of 4500, that's not a bad percentage. 2006 might have been a bad year for him. I think I've been taking care of it since 2010 or so.

In 2008 Groundspeak cracked down on virtual caches, and the rules of logging this cache were changed and became stricter, in order to keep this cache from being archived. No more virtual virtual logging after that at all. I hope this sets your mind at ease.

Link to comment

By the way Downy, I hope to see you at the Geo Beach Bash. We can discuss it if you want. I also have that virtual at Trustom Pond. It's a wheelchair/stroller friendly walk that can be up to 3 miles long if you wish. I do answer every single one logger on that cache, too. Without fail. You should check it out. I happen to like virtuals, if they are done right, and I will not let these two go the way of the Dodo bird and the Edsel!

Link to comment

Hi Downy288.

I am the adoptive owner of that cache.

 

I didn't think Virtuals could be adopted out.

 

Two sentences after the one you quoted...

I agreed to take care of it for him and Groundspeak gave us written permission for this to happen.

 

Apparently Groundspeak will make an exception. In this case, the location is so closely related to the game of geocaching that it just asks for a cache to be located there.

 

On a somewhat related note, we drove by a Garmin store about a week ago in a place I wouldn't have expected to see one. It was in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, a city of about 3 million people and only one geocache. I actually within about a mile of that cache and was thinking of going to find it but we had a little incident that prevented us from doing so (my colleagues wallet was stolen).

Link to comment

To the OP.... if you don't mind me asking... what exactly was the purpose of this thread??

 

You say you own two Virtuals yourself, yet you quote bogus logs from someone elses.:blink: Are you proposing archiving the two you have for that reason? Or are you trying to get the one you quoted from archived?? (seems Planet may have spoiled that for you)

 

Inquiring minds want to know.

 

4wheelin' keep that popcorn handy.;)

Link to comment

Hi Downy288.

I am the adoptive owner of that cache.

 

I didn't think Virtuals could be adopted out.

 

Two sentences after the one you quoted...

I agreed to take care of it for him and Groundspeak gave us written permission for this to happen.

 

Apparently Groundspeak will make an exception. In this case, the location is so closely related to the game of geocaching that it just asks for a cache to be located there.

 

I guess I just don't agree with making the exception then.

Link to comment

Hi Downy288.

I am the adoptive owner of that cache.

 

I didn't think Virtuals could be adopted out.

 

Two sentences after the one you quoted...

I agreed to take care of it for him and Groundspeak gave us written permission for this to happen.

 

Apparently Groundspeak will make an exception. In this case, the location is so closely related to the game of geocaching that it just asks for a cache to be located there.

 

I guess I just don't agree with making the exception then.

 

Believe me, we had a lot of discussion first about it, and how people would feel. It wasn't a snap decision. Since the location is so closely related to geocaching, it seemed a good move to keep a good relationship open too. With all the emails I get, which sometimes go back and forth with chit chat between us, I learn more about cachers from other areas and get side stories. Just yesterday I got a log from a guy from Dingman's Ferry,PA. So while he's logging my cache in Maine, I was kayaking down the Delaware River, landing in Dingman's Ferry, PA. It's a small world and we are all connected by our caches. :D

Link to comment

Hi Downy288.

I am the adoptive owner of that cache.

 

I didn't think Virtuals could be adopted out.

 

Two sentences after the one you quoted...

I agreed to take care of it for him and Groundspeak gave us written permission for this to happen.

 

Apparently Groundspeak will make an exception. In this case, the location is so closely related to the game of geocaching that it just asks for a cache to be located there.

 

I guess I just don't agree with making the exception then.

 

It's why they call them guidelines and not rules or laws.

Link to comment

I have a couple of comments,

 

first what about adding in a drop down menu, similiar to the account recovery questions at mail sites. And having the answers verify the find. but have the answers or one or two of them have nothing to do with the cache but can only be found by actually going there.

 

Ok I do now that this is not going to be implemented as virtuals are no longer valid except the grandfathered ones. just an idea.

 

Second i found a virtual cache here where the cache owner says Do not post any pics or info that answers the questions needed to verify the find. however in the image gallery, there are several pics that give you all the info needed to log it. i sent the CO a message telling them this, but never got a response. i didnt log it at that time but later I did go there and logged it, i answered the CO's questions, and added some info that would only be known by actually going there, as well as taking a picture with the date and time stamp. never got any kind of response at all.

 

A couple of other local virts I got responses from the CO's within hours. i guess it all depends on the CO's

Link to comment

I can see why Downy would ask. Downy and I are acquaintances from many an event. I didn't take Ghosthunter's name off the cache, so maybe he didn't know I am the current owner to ask me personally. I am against arm chair logging, and it won't happen on my watch. I have deleted a few logs since taking it on.

Link to comment

Hi Downy288.

I am the adoptive owner of that cache.

 

I didn't think Virtuals could be adopted out.

 

Two sentences after the one you quoted...

I agreed to take care of it for him and Groundspeak gave us written permission for this to happen.

 

Apparently Groundspeak will make an exception. In this case, the location is so closely related to the game of geocaching that it just asks for a cache to be located there.

 

I guess I just don't agree with making the exception then.

 

It's why they call them guidelines and not rules or laws.

 

Doesn't mean I have to agree with them making the exception.

 

Will every Virtual that someone thinks is "closely related to geocaching" get the same thoughtful going over to see if should be allowed to be adopted?

Link to comment

Hi Downy288.

I am the adoptive owner of that cache.

 

I didn't think Virtuals could be adopted out.

 

Two sentences after the one you quoted...

I agreed to take care of it for him and Groundspeak gave us written permission for this to happen.

 

Apparently Groundspeak will make an exception. In this case, the location is so closely related to the game of geocaching that it just asks for a cache to be located there.

 

I guess I just don't agree with making the exception then.

 

It's why they call them guidelines and not rules or laws.

 

Doesn't mean I have to agree with them making the exception.

 

Will every Virtual that someone thinks is "closely related to geocaching" get the same thoughtful going over to see if should be allowed to be adopted?

 

I doubt it. I assume that you know what cache is being discussed here and what can be found at the location (since you've logged a find on it). It truly is an exception. It's not a case that someone "thinks" it's closely related to geocaching. I don't think I've ever heard of any other virtuals that were allowed to be adopted since new virtuals were abolished. It's not as if this cache will be setting a precedent for other attempts for virts to be adopted.

 

If one holds the belief that the "virtual caches can not be adopted", period, I can understand why someone might object to this one being adopted. However, if one accepts that possibility that an exception can be made, you'd be hard pressed to find a virtual cache more deserving for an adoption than the one being discussed. It is unfortunate that so many people have armchair logged it and it peeves me especially because I *did* visit the location but didn't meet all the criteria asked for so I don't have a Found It for the cache.

Link to comment

Virtuals not originally locked down from adoptions, and were able to be adopted after they had been abolished for about a year or two. I know of a cacher that solicited adoptions and heavily modified one in particular, as to make it appear that he listed it originally. If one was adopted after the cutoff, I really don't see what the big deal is.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...