Vicariously Making a Find?

[+Glenn]

It isn't the cachers logging "false finds" that is causing you grief. It's the nosy busybodies who live with the haunting fear that someone, somewhere may be having fun and doing it in a way that they don't approve of. Are you saying that other cachers you meet look up your stats and then race over to cross examine you? That sort of person, I would have no trouble telling to flake off.

 

The situation that I am recalling was where I listed the countries that I had cached in. This short list includes Italy. To which someone responded "Have you ever been to Italy?". I initially didn't know how to respond. I mean how do you cache in a country without actually going to that country. Apparently you can do it vicariously. I get the feeling that vicariously is the politically correct term for armchair caching.

[+MartyBartfast]

The 7 caches I've been referring to were not published by a "sleeping" reviewer, they were published in the full knowledge and with the acceptance of Groundspeak, here's the published log from http://coord.info/GC18DGA (my bold)

 

I see the problem now. While the OP and the rest of us have been talking about http://coord.info/GC2YDRF. You have talking about some other caches. Your argument has merit but if we aren't discussing the same cache then it's like comparing apples to oranges. Maybe you should start your topic instead of trying to hijack this one.

 

I think you may be right, but I refute the suggestion that I "hijacked" the thread. here Mudfrog asked about co-operative caches and what people thought of them so I answered that here with an example that I've logged myself. It looks like OZ2CPU didn't read my post before castigating me for not understanding the 'rules' and then Roman! came straight in accusing me of 'cheating', whether Roman! read my post properly I don't know. It all went downhill from there, but I wasn't going to stay quiet when Roman! accused me of being a cheat.

 

While the thread has strayed somewhat from the original post I still think it's on topic because we've been discussing the rights and wrongs of logging caches which haven't physically been found.

[cezanne]

It isn't the cachers logging "false finds" that is causing you grief. It's the nosy busybodies who live with the haunting fear that someone, somewhere may be having fun and doing it in a way that they don't approve of. Are you saying that other cachers you meet look up your stats and then race over to cross examine you? That sort of person, I would have no trouble telling to flake off.

 

The situation that I am recalling was where I listed the countries that I had cached in. This short list includes Italy. To which someone responded "Have you ever been to Italy?". I initially didn't know how to respond. I mean how do you cache in a country without actually going to that country. Apparently you can do it vicariously. I get the feeling that vicariously is the politically correct term for armchair caching.

 

Actually, there exist caches on gc.com (most of them are not any longer active) that have been designed for armchair geocaching and could only be done in that way and no other way.

Moreover, moving caches or caches that have been edited at a time when it was still possible to edit the country field after publication are further examples how a country could get into the list of countries visited for caching even though one has not been there. Note that when seeing a list it is not clear whether the list is a manual one or one which has been prepared automatically.

 

 

Cezanne

Edited August 22, 2012 by cezanne

[knowschad]

So I had this log posted as a find on my Cache Across America - Alaska cache recently:

 

We found this vicariously through our good friend and geocaching buddy. Vicariously because he was the only one who was actually at the cache. Since we don't have a plan to visit Alaska, we thought we could "find" this cache in absentia.

 

He has since extended an invitation to visit him there and we might accept. If we do, we'll find the cache for ourselves. Hope this counts in the meantime.

 

Needless to say I'm contacting them to let them know I'm deleting their log... At first I suspect they must be newbies, but they have 194 finds, and all of those look legit.

 

Delete.

 

If they complained I'd send them to the forums.

... a fate worse than any other form of punishment!

[knowschad]

Yes, but by deleting the log you are punishing the cacher for being truthful.

Is there a point there? Try robbing a bank, and then walking up to a copy and admitting it. Think he'll thank you for being truthful and wish you a good day?

[4wheelin_fool]

Yes, but by deleting the log you are punishing the cacher for being truthful.

Is there a point there?

 

Yes, you missed it.

 

They could have logged a TFTC, and with their name in the logbook there would be nothing you could do about it.

 

How would you know what they did, unless they admitted it in their log? Delete the log and they relog with a TFTC. Delete it again, and they send a photo of the log to Groundspeak who reinstates it.

 

Next time they log TFTC. Meanwhile you are left explaining that you are deleting a log in which the cacher was not really there, but the only evidence of it is his own log, in which you deleted. He explains that he was kidding and that his name is in the logbook and thats all you really need to know about it.

 

But if you have a game camera set up nearby, you could always send that evidence in to Seattle.

 

 

I also wanted to add that 4wheelin_fool is currently busy, but he has paid me to fill in for him on his forum duties. My name is Jaspal, and I'm posting from Vikarabad, India.

Edited August 22, 2012 by 4wheelin_fool

[+junglehair]

I once helped some friends to find a cache via the phone. I don't remember the exact details - either I was looking up something for them to solve a puzzle cache, or was getting updated coordinates or something. Anyway, when they found the cache I said "put my name in the log too - I helped!" As far as I know, they did write my name in the log book. I've also joked with people I know that were going on vacation to some exotic place that they should put my name in the log books there. Not sure if any of them did that or not, but I never actually claimed any of these logs online.

 

I am pretty easy going and believe in letting people play the game however they want. Even still, if that was my cache I would politely ask them to delete their log.

[4wheelin_fool]

Maybe one day people will realize that other cachers stats are really not that important. Who really cares if they visited those countries on their profile?

 

After they discover that, they realize that their own stats are not really that important to others!

 

Next, they grab the GPS, go outside, and find some caches..

 

 

 

I also wanted to add that 4wheelin_fool is currently busy, but he has paid me to fill in for him on his forum duties. My name is Jaspal, and I'm posting from Vikarabad, India.

Edited August 22, 2012 by 4wheelin_fool

[ad5smith]

What's a sleeping reviewer? I have a hard time doing anything while I'm sleeping

[ad5smith]

It isn't the cachers logging "false finds" that is causing you grief. It's the nosy busybodies who live with the haunting fear that someone, somewhere may be having fun and doing it in a way that they don't approve of. Are you saying that other cachers you meet look up your stats and then race over to cross examine you? That sort of person, I would have no trouble telling to flake off.

 

The situation that I am recalling was where I listed the countries that I had cached in. This short list includes Italy. To which someone responded "Have you ever been to Italy?". I initially didn't know how to respond. I mean how do you cache in a country without actually going to that country. Apparently you can do it vicariously. I get the feeling that vicariously is the politically correct term for armchair caching.

 

Actually, there exist caches on gc.com (most of them are not any longer active) that have been designed for armchair geocaching and could only be done in that way and no other way.

Moreover, moving caches or caches that have been edited at a time when it was still possible to edit the country field after publication are further examples how a country could get into the list of countries visited for caching even though one has not been there. Note that when seeing a list it is not clear whether the list is a manual one or one which has been prepared automatically.

 

 

Cezanne

 

Armchair caches? Do tell

[+MartyBartfast]

 

Armchair caches? Do tell

 

Caches such as Four Windows (long since disabled) it's basically just a riddle, if you work out the answers the CO would allow you to log it, there's no way you could visit the virtual location as it doesn't actually exist.

[+CanadianRockies]

Armchair caches? Do tell

Here are a couple of which I'm aware:

 

Team PodCacher's Treasure Cache (PTC) - But you'll have to get out of your armchair long enough to get to a mailbox.

 

Trojan Horse 2 - Once upon a time, you were allowed to log a find by sending the solved puzzle coordinates to the owner. The cache description was changed, and it appears that nobody has vicariously logged a find since February.

[+Don_J]

OZ2CPU & Roman!

 

I did what the cache owner required to find their caches and I logged them in the way they wanted, GS accepted it, I (and everyone round the world who logged those caches) accepted it.

 

Why does it upset you both so much?

 

Either they are intentionally baiting you or they have no concept of the fact that some things were done differently back in the day. What was accepted then may not be accepted now, but that does not mean that you go back and rewrite history. You, and many, many others logged the caches, and similar ones, under the terms that were accepted at the time. You did nothing wrong. For these guys to ride in on their high horses and tell you otherwise is what is wrong.

[Cascade Reviewer]

What's a sleeping reviewer? I have a hard time doing anything while I'm sleeping

 

I was sleeping while reviewing last night, that's why I had to stop. I was afraid that I would crash the website. Know when to say when.

Edited August 22, 2012 by Cascade Reviewer

[+Glenn]

I once helped some friends to find a cache via the phone. I don't remember the exact details - either I was looking up something for them to solve a puzzle cache, or was getting updated coordinates or something. Anyway, when they found the cache I said "put my name in the log too - I helped!" As far as I know, they did write my name in the log book. I've also joked with people I know that were going on vacation to some exotic place that they should put my name in the log books there. Not sure if any of them did that or not, but I never actually claimed any of these logs online.

 

I am pretty easy going and believe in letting people play the game however they want. Even still, if that was my cache I would politely ask them to delete their log.

So if someone logged a find on one of your Earthcaches and didn't meet the logging requirements you would let the find stand? What if they also admitted in the log that they had no intention of meeting the logging requirements or even visiting the Earthcache location?

[AZcachemeister]

I would never consider posting an online 'Found It!' for a cache unless I actually have held the log in my hands.

If it becomes common to have a friend sign someone's name in a cache log (even though they weren't there) so they can log it online, then we are really looking at the end of days.

 

Moving caches were/are a fun anomaly...who knew they would give you a 'find' in a state you never visited? Had I known, I never would have logged the one I found that ended up in Florida, a state I have not yet visited.

 

Caches that require assistance from widely separated cachers? Also perhaps fun, but I wouldn't log it as a find if I wasn't present at the actual container.

If I help Knowschad solve a puzzle, can I ask him to sign the log for me and claim a find? I think not.

 

As of this morning, I am the proud owner of a challenge cache in which a part of the requirements are based on how many states and countries you have cached in. I won't be amused if someone tries to slip one of these 'remote teamwork' finds into the mix for their qualifications.

 

Sure, it's only a game, and games should be fun.

But, games have rules that are meant to be followed.

If you were playing ...ohhh...Monopoly with someone and they decided they didn't like what they rolled with the dice and just put their marker wherever they wanted, would you continue playing with them? Is it still actually Monopoly you are playing?

 

EDITED: To specify Challenge Cache...I'm not touching those other things.

Edited August 23, 2012 by AZcachemeister

[+Glenn]

Actually, there exist caches on gc.com (most of them are not any longer active) that have been designed for armchair geocaching and could only be done in that way and no other way.

Moreover, moving caches or caches that have been edited at a time when it was still possible to edit the country field after publication are further examples how a country could get into the list of countries visited for caching even though one has not been there. Note that when seeing a list it is not clear whether the list is a manual one or one which has been prepared automatically.

 

 

Cezanne

If you look at my stats you'll see that I've logged Locationless caches. One of them is listed as being in Australia but my stats do not show Australia as a country I have visited.

[ad5smith]

Armchair caches? Do tell

Here are a couple of which I'm aware:

 

Team PodCacher's Treasure Cache (PTC) - But you'll have to get out of your armchair long enough to get to a mailbox.

 

Trojan Horse 2 - Once upon a time, you were allowed to log a find by sending the solved puzzle coordinates to the owner. The cache description was changed, and it appears that nobody has vicariously logged a find since February.

 

I looked at both,

 

I'll be honest, I was confused, which in turn made be very uninterested

[+Don_J]

I would never consider posting an online 'Found It!' for a cache unless I actually have held the log in my hands.

If it becomes common to have a friend sign someone's name in a cache log (even though they weren't there) so they can log it online, then we are really looking at the end of days.

 

Moving caches were/are a fun anomaly...who knew they would give you a 'find' in a state you never visited? Had I known, I never would have logged the one I found that ended up in Florida, a state I have not yet visited.

 

Caches that require assistance from widely separated cachers? Also perhaps fun, but I wouldn't log it as a find if I wasn't present at the actual container.

If I help Knowschad solve a puzzle, can I ask him to sign the log for me and claim a find? I think not.

 

As of this morning, I am the proud owner of a challenge cache in which a part of the requirements are based on how many states and countries you have cached in. I won't be amused if someone tries to slip one of these 'remote teamwork' finds into the mix for their qualifications.

 

Sure, it's only a game, and games should be fun.

But, games have rules that are meant to be followed.

If you were playing ...ohhh...Monopoly with someone and they decided they didn't like what they rolled with the dice and just put their marker wherever they wanted, would you continue playing with them? Is it still actually Monopoly you are playing?

 

EDITED: To specify Challenge Cache...I'm not touching those other things.

 

Moving caches are supposed to be listed at the coordinate that you find them. Part of maintaining a moving cache is to update the coordinates each time it is moved. The owner of the cache that was mentioned has not done so in almost two years and didn't really do it that often prior to that. Now that it has been posted in the forum, I wouldn't be surprised if the reviewer that is monitoring all of the moving caches doesn't drop a reviewers note to remind the CO of his obligations. There was one whose coordinates were stuck in Northern California while the cache itself was bouncing around in Germany that got archived because of an absentee owner that was not updating the coordinates.

[+Don_J]

Actually, there exist caches on gc.com (most of them are not any longer active) that have been designed for armchair geocaching and could only be done in that way and no other way.

Moreover, moving caches or caches that have been edited at a time when it was still possible to edit the country field after publication are further examples how a country could get into the list of countries visited for caching even though one has not been there. Note that when seeing a list it is not clear whether the list is a manual one or one which has been prepared automatically.

 

 

Cezanne

If you look at my stats you'll see that I've logged Locationless caches. One of them is listed as being in Australia but my stats do not show Australia as a country I have visited.

 

Locationless caches are specifically excluded from distance based stats on GC.com.

[+Crow-T-Robot]

 

Sure, it's only a game, and games should be fun.

But, games have rules that are meant to be followed.

If you were playing ...ohhh...Monopoly with someone and they decided they didn't like what they rolled with the dice and just put their marker wherever they wanted, would you continue playing with them? Is it still actually Monopoly you are playing?

 

That's not a very good analogy, though. If it was Monopoly, someone not playing by the "rules" would affect me and my enjoyment. In that example, someone cheating/playing their own way/making things up as they go along can make the game less fun or unplayable.

With geocaching, if someone is logging caches they didn't find (or in a more general term: playing the game their own way), it doesn't affect me and my enjoyment of the game...unless I let it. I just don't see how someone else breaking "the rules" of geocaching takes away any of the fun for anyone else.

[+Roman!]

 

Sure, it's only a game, and games should be fun.

But, games have rules that are meant to be followed.

If you were playing ...ohhh...Monopoly with someone and they decided they didn't like what they rolled with the dice and just put their marker wherever they wanted, would you continue playing with them? Is it still actually Monopoly you are playing?

 

That's not a very good analogy, though. If it was Monopoly, someone not playing by the "rules" would affect me and my enjoyment. In that example, someone cheating/playing their own way/making things up as they go along can make the game less fun or unplayable.

With geocaching, if someone is logging caches they didn't find (or in a more general term: playing the game their own way), it doesn't affect me and my enjoyment of the game...unless I let it. I just don't see how someone else breaking "the rules" of geocaching takes away any of the fun for anyone else.

 

If no logs were never deleted for false logging more and more people would do it. If I had to actually let fake logs stand on my caches I'd archive them and I'm sure many others would, IMHO if this practice got really rampant I think it would actually destroy geocaching so yes, breaking the basic rule of signing the log actually could affect you.

[+Cachefoxxe]

I have been watching this topic for a while now. A lot of good points have been made both for and against this. Now i have a question for you.

 

What is the difference between logging it as in in the OP, and Logging it as a team?

 

Say a group of people find it as a team, and one of them is in the restroom. They sign it only as a team name, and when everyone gets home they all log it online. Why should the one person who wasn't with them, the moment they had the cache in hand, not be allowed to get the find?

 

Or say the same team signed everyone's name singly including the one not present. Their name is in the log. They get the find, even though they were not present for the "find".

 

I don't see any difference between the OP's and the one I put out there myself. The only way you would actually know is if they said in the found it log "hey I was in the restroom when the team found it. Sounded like a cool find TFTC."

 

The difference is they told the truth.

 

Which would you prefer.

 

A "TFTC" or "My team found it while I was busy so I didn't see it. They signed my name in the log so I'm loggin it as found."

Edited August 24, 2012 by ghosthunterlogan

[+CanadianRockies]

Sure, it's only a game, and games should be fun.

But, games have rules that are meant to be followed.

If you were playing ...ohhh...Monopoly with someone and they decided they didn't like what they rolled with the dice and just put their marker wherever they wanted, would you continue playing with them? Is it still actually Monopoly you are playing?

That's not a very good analogy, though. If it was Monopoly, someone not playing by the "rules" would affect me and my enjoyment. In that example, someone cheating/playing their own way/making things up as they go along can make the game less fun or unplayable.

With geocaching, if someone is logging caches they didn't find (or in a more general term: playing the game their own way), it doesn't affect me and my enjoyment of the game...unless I let it. I just don't see how someone else breaking "the rules" of geocaching takes away any of the fun for anyone else.

If you treat geocaching as a completely individual, isolated activity, then other people's unusual definitions of "finds" probably won't affect you very much.

 

That's less true for those of us who enjoy sharing our geocaching experiences with other members of the geocaching community. If logging finds when you are thousands of miles away becomes commonplace, then it becomes much more ambiguous to make a statement like, "I found a cache in Australia last month." Did you visit Australia or simply find someone there to sign your name on a log? "I found caches in 15 countries in one day." Significant achievement or lots of emails? "I filled in all 81 D/T grid blocks." So what; I could do that without leaving my chair.

[+CanadianRockies]

Say a group of people find it as a team, and one of them is in the restroom. They sign it only as a team name, and when everyone gets home they all log it online. Why should the one person who wasn't with them, the moment they had the cache in hand, not be allowed to get the find?

Because they didn't help make the find. If I was in the restroom when the rest of the team found the cache, then I wouldn't log it as a find.

[+Don_J]

Sure, it's only a game, and games should be fun.

But, games have rules that are meant to be followed.

If you were playing ...ohhh...Monopoly with someone and they decided they didn't like what they rolled with the dice and just put their marker wherever they wanted, would you continue playing with them? Is it still actually Monopoly you are playing?

That's not a very good analogy, though. If it was Monopoly, someone not playing by the "rules" would affect me and my enjoyment. In that example, someone cheating/playing their own way/making things up as they go along can make the game less fun or unplayable.

With geocaching, if someone is logging caches they didn't find (or in a more general term: playing the game their own way), it doesn't affect me and my enjoyment of the game...unless I let it. I just don't see how someone else breaking "the rules" of geocaching takes away any of the fun for anyone else.

If you treat geocaching as a completely individual, isolated activity, then other people's unusual definitions of "finds" probably won't affect you very much.

 

That's less true for those of us who enjoy sharing our geocaching experiences with other members of the geocaching community. If logging finds when you are thousands of miles away becomes commonplace, then it becomes much more ambiguous to make a statement like, "I found a cache in Australia last month." Did you visit Australia or simply find someone there to sign your name on a log? "I found caches in 15 countries in one day." Significant achievement or lots of emails? "I filled in all 81 D/T grid blocks." So what; I could do that without leaving my chair.

 

This is why, except under unique circumstances, Groundspeak no longer allows such caches and archived/locked all of the previous ones. These caches still existed when I started geocaching but I didn't know about them until they were archived and locked. Being new, I probably would have logged them. Years later, I wouldn't delete the logs just because a couple of people on a message forum called me a cheater. I have geofriends that have a find in Australia, even though they have never visited Australia. I would never dream of calling them cheaters and I'm sure that they would never dream of deleting a find from nine years ago because some relative newcomer, full of forum rhetoric, thinks they are cheaters.

[+Cachefoxxe]

Say a group of people find it as a team, and one of them is in the restroom. They sign it only as a team name, and when everyone gets home they all log it online. Why should the one person who wasn't with them, the moment they had the cache in hand, not be allowed to get the find?

Because they didn't help make the find. If I was in the restroom when the rest of the team found the cache, then I wouldn't log it as a find.

 

If all they said was TFTC you wouldn't know. These people were honest about it and the basic point of this thread (from what it seems to me) is to punish people who are honest. What you are teaching people by this (Again my opinion) is Lie on the logs and you can keep your smiley. Tell the truth and we delete them.

[+Ambrosia]

Say a group of people find it as a team, and one of them is in the restroom. They sign it only as a team name, and when everyone gets home they all log it online. Why should the one person who wasn't with them, the moment they had the cache in hand, not be allowed to get the find?

Because they didn't help make the find. If I was in the restroom when the rest of the team found the cache, then I wouldn't log it as a find.

 

If all they said was TFTC you wouldn't know. These people were honest about it and the basic point of this thread (from what it seems to me) is to punish people who are honest. What you are teaching people by this (Again my opinion) is Lie on the logs and you can keep your smiley. Tell the truth and we delete them.

On the other hand, if you don't do anything, you're teaching people that as long as they tell the truth, they can get away with anything.

[+tozainamboku]

If all they said was TFTC you wouldn't know. These people were honest about it and the basic point of this thread (from what it seems to me) is to punish people who are honest. What you are teaching people by this (Again my opinion) is Lie on the logs and you can keep your smiley. Tell the truth and we delete them.

On the other hand, if you don't do anything, you're teaching people that as long as they tell the truth, they can get away with anything.

I prefer teaching people that "the points don't matter". If someone decides it's a good reason to log a cache they never found because that gives them more points, I'd rather not reinforce this by deleting their log and calling them cheater. If they post honestly why they logged a find anyhow, people will see the log and decide for themselves if the person was being silly or not. If you have to, you can point it out in the Found It = Didn't Find It thread (just don't name names). Some people eventually learn that it is silly to log vicarious finds. But when you delete logs, I think it tends to reinforce that impression the smiley has value regardless whether or not you found the cache, and in any case it encourages less honest logs that can't be distinguished from legitimate finds.

[+BlueDeuce]

If all they said was TFTC you wouldn't know. These people were honest about it and the basic point of this thread (from what it seems to me) is to punish people who are honest. What you are teaching people by this (Again my opinion) is Lie on the logs and you can keep your smiley. Tell the truth and we delete them.

On the other hand, if you don't do anything, you're teaching people that as long as they tell the truth, they can get away with anything.

I prefer teaching people that "the points don't matter". If someone decides it's a good reason to log a cache they never found because that gives them more points, I'd rather not reinforce this by deleting their log and calling them cheater. If they post honestly why they logged a find anyhow, people will see the log and decide for themselves if the person was being silly or not. If you have to, you can point it out in the Found It = Didn't Find It thread (just don't name names). Some people eventually learn that it is silly to log vicarious finds. But when you delete logs, I think it tends to reinforce that impression the smiley has value regardless whether or not you found the cache, and in any case it encourages less honest logs that can't be distinguished from legitimate finds.

 

So you're an enabler and a hippy one at that.

Edited August 25, 2012 by BlueDeuce

[+LewisClan77]

>Do GS still accept these kind of caches?

 

offcourse NOT..

Or maybe they do...GC39840,GC10ARB. I have found both. I was FTF on the Wisconson one.

[+Ambrosia]

>Do GS still accept these kind of caches?

 

offcourse NOT..

Or maybe they do...GC39840,GC10ARB. I have found both. I was FTF on the Wisconson one.

There's one in Seattle. I have it on my mental ignore list, even though I see it on the maps every time I'm planning caching downtown. I probably should make use of the handy dandy ignore list that Groundspeak has provided us with.

[+lamoracke]

think Seattle is actually blessed with two of these. As a slave to the radius to some level (at least then), I did muddle through both of them.

 

Azcachemeister, your ball of confusion challenge cache confused me at a glance! I think I need more sleep to figure that one out, not that I have another Arizona trip planned anytime soon.

[+Ambrosia]

think Seattle is actually blessed with two of these. As a slave to the radius to some level (at least then), I did muddle through both of them.

 

<snip>

Ah, I'd only noticed one of them. Part of my problem with them is that I'm not very good at connecting with other people like the cache requires. Gives me hives to go through all that work, so I don't even read the cache page.

[4wheelin_fool]

If all they said was TFTC you wouldn't know. These people were honest about it and the basic point of this thread (from what it seems to me) is to punish people who are honest. What you are teaching people by this (Again my opinion) is Lie on the logs and you can keep your smiley. Tell the truth and we delete them.

On the other hand, if you don't do anything, you're teaching people that as long as they tell the truth, they can get away with anything.

I prefer teaching people that "the points don't matter". If someone decides it's a good reason to log a cache they never found because that gives them more points, I'd rather not reinforce this by deleting their log and calling them cheater. If they post honestly why they logged a find anyhow, people will see the log and decide for themselves if the person was being silly or not. If you have to, you can point it out in the Found It = Didn't Find It thread (just don't name names). Some people eventually learn that it is silly to log vicarious finds. But when you delete logs, I think it tends to reinforce that impression the smiley has value regardless whether or not you found the cache, and in any case it encourages less honest logs that can't be distinguished from legitimate finds.

 

So you're an enabler and a hippy one at that.

 

It's impossible to enforce the legitimacy of every cache. Suppose someone had their buddy climb the tree, while they waited below? Suppose they got the final coords of a multi from a previous finder? Suppose they PAF on a 5 difficulty hide? Suppose they got the final coords of a puzzle from their buddy who solved it? All you can enforce, and are entitled to enforce, is their name on the log. Since the numbers do NOT matter, and the stats can never be accurate, as comparable D/T finds are never alike, it is better to welcome honesty, rather than deleting finds where a cacher's name is in the logbook. Otherwise you are only encouraging TFTC, and with a signature in the logbook, regardless of the person who wrote it, there is nothing you can do about it. Is it really about the stats being accurate? or about openness and having fun?

[+BlueDeuce]

If all they said was TFTC you wouldn't know. These people were honest about it and the basic point of this thread (from what it seems to me) is to punish people who are honest. What you are teaching people by this (Again my opinion) is Lie on the logs and you can keep your smiley. Tell the truth and we delete them.

On the other hand, if you don't do anything, you're teaching people that as long as they tell the truth, they can get away with anything.

I prefer teaching people that "the points don't matter". If someone decides it's a good reason to log a cache they never found because that gives them more points, I'd rather not reinforce this by deleting their log and calling them cheater. If they post honestly why they logged a find anyhow, people will see the log and decide for themselves if the person was being silly or not. If you have to, you can point it out in the Found It = Didn't Find It thread (just don't name names). Some people eventually learn that it is silly to log vicarious finds. But when you delete logs, I think it tends to reinforce that impression the smiley has value regardless whether or not you found the cache, and in any case it encourages less honest logs that can't be distinguished from legitimate finds.

 

So you're an enabler and a hippy one at that.

 

It's impossible to enforce the legitimacy of every cache. Suppose someone had their buddy climb the tree, while they waited below? Suppose they got the final coords of a multi from a previous finder? Suppose they PAF on a 5 difficulty hide? Suppose they got the final coords of a puzzle from their buddy who solved it? All you can enforce, and are entitled to enforce, is their name on the log. Since the numbers do NOT matter, and the stats can never be accurate, as comparable D/T finds are never alike, it is better to welcome honesty, rather than deleting finds where a cacher's name is in the logbook. Otherwise you are only encouraging TFTC, and with a signature in the logbook, regardless of the person who wrote it, there is nothing you can do about it. Is it really about the stats being accurate? or about openness and having fun?

 

Bull, being a cacher and just dealing with everything that goes along with it like it doesn't matter is what I expect from Toz. Never agreed with it. Plenty of excuses of everything than finding the cache. Would you like me to bow down?

[+CanadianRockies]

Say a group of people find it as a team, and one of them is in the restroom. They sign it only as a team name, and when everyone gets home they all log it online. Why should the one person who wasn't with them, the moment they had the cache in hand, not be allowed to get the find?

Because they didn't help make the find. If I was in the restroom when the rest of the team found the cache, then I wouldn't log it as a find.

If all they said was TFTC you wouldn't know. These people were honest about it and the basic point of this thread (from what it seems to me) is to punish people who are honest. What you are teaching people by this (Again my opinion) is Lie on the logs and you can keep your smiley. Tell the truth and we delete them.

To me, the basic point of this thread is to determine what the general consensus is amongst geocachers regarding the posting "Found it" logs for caches that one did not find.

 

If an owner deletes a vicarious find log and gently explains that such finds generally aren't considered legitimate, then maybe the owner is educating the "finder" rather than teaching them to lie in their logs.

 

When I first encountered travel bugs and geocoins, I traded swag in and out of the caches when I took or left them. After a fellow geocacher explained the right way to move trackables along, I changed my behavior to match the general norms. I didn't secretly continue my previous behavior.

[+BlueDeuce]

Say a group of people find it as a team, and one of them is in the restroom. They sign it only as a team name, and when everyone gets home they all log it online. Why should the one person who wasn't with them, the moment they had the cache in hand, not be allowed to get the find?

Because they didn't help make the find. If I was in the restroom when the rest of the team found the cache, then I wouldn't log it as a find.

If all they said was TFTC you wouldn't know. These people were honest about it and the basic point of this thread (from what it seems to me) is to punish people who are honest. What you are teaching people by this (Again my opinion) is Lie on the logs and you can keep your smiley. Tell the truth and we delete them.

To me, the basic point of this thread is to determine what the general consensus is amongst geocachers regarding the posting "Found it" logs for caches that one did not find.

 

If an owner deletes a vicarious find log and gently explains that such finds generally aren't considered legitimate, then maybe the owner is educating the "finder" rather than teaching them to lie in their logs.

 

When I first encountered travel bugs and geocoins, I traded swag in and out of the caches when I took or left them. After a fellow geocacher explained the right way to move trackables along, I changed my behavior to match the general norms. I didn't secretly continue my previous behavior.

 

Well said. Seriously.

[4wheelin_fool]

If all they said was TFTC you wouldn't know. These people were honest about it and the basic point of this thread (from what it seems to me) is to punish people who are honest. What you are teaching people by this (Again my opinion) is Lie on the logs and you can keep your smiley. Tell the truth and we delete them.

On the other hand, if you don't do anything, you're teaching people that as long as they tell the truth, they can get away with anything.

I prefer teaching people that "the points don't matter". If someone decides it's a good reason to log a cache they never found because that gives them more points, I'd rather not reinforce this by deleting their log and calling them cheater. If they post honestly why they logged a find anyhow, people will see the log and decide for themselves if the person was being silly or not. If you have to, you can point it out in the Found It = Didn't Find It thread (just don't name names). Some people eventually learn that it is silly to log vicarious finds. But when you delete logs, I think it tends to reinforce that impression the smiley has value regardless whether or not you found the cache, and in any case it encourages less honest logs that can't be distinguished from legitimate finds.

 

So you're an enabler and a hippy one at that.

 

It's impossible to enforce the legitimacy of every cache. Suppose someone had their buddy climb the tree, while they waited below? Suppose they got the final coords of a multi from a previous finder? Suppose they PAF on a 5 difficulty hide? Suppose they got the final coords of a puzzle from their buddy who solved it? All you can enforce, and are entitled to enforce, is their name on the log. Since the numbers do NOT matter, and the stats can never be accurate, as comparable D/T finds are never alike, it is better to welcome honesty, rather than deleting finds where a cacher's name is in the logbook. Otherwise you are only encouraging TFTC, and with a signature in the logbook, regardless of the person who wrote it, there is nothing you can do about it. Is it really about the stats being accurate? or about openness and having fun?

 

Bull, being a cacher and just dealing with everything that goes along with it like it doesn't matter is what I expect from Toz. Never agreed with it. Plenty of excuses of everything than finding the cache. Would you like me to bow down?

 

You don't have to accept it or bow down, but there is absolutely nothing you can do about it if their name is in the log.

 

Delete it and that teaches them that accurate stats are more important than being open and honest. They won't learn to obey you, rather they will only learn not to put too much information in their log and to write a TFTC.

 

It's difficult to understand the same people saying that the numbers don't matter, yet who delete a log that only messes up stats.

 

If their name is in the logbook and they say someone else climbed the tree, solved the puzzle, gave them the final coords, signed them in, or told them where it was hidden, all you can do is wring your hands and cuss the nature of free will.

[+tozainamboku]

If all they said was TFTC you wouldn't know. These people were honest about it and the basic point of this thread (from what it seems to me) is to punish people who are honest. What you are teaching people by this (Again my opinion) is Lie on the logs and you can keep your smiley. Tell the truth and we delete them.

On the other hand, if you don't do anything, you're teaching people that as long as they tell the truth, they can get away with anything.

I prefer teaching people that "the points don't matter". If someone decides it's a good reason to log a cache they never found because that gives them more points, I'd rather not reinforce this by deleting their log and calling them cheater. If they post honestly why they logged a find anyhow, people will see the log and decide for themselves if the person was being silly or not. If you have to, you can point it out in the Found It = Didn't Find It thread (just don't name names). Some people eventually learn that it is silly to log vicarious finds. But when you delete logs, I think it tends to reinforce that impression the smiley has value regardless whether or not you found the cache, and in any case it encourages less honest logs that can't be distinguished from legitimate finds.

 

So you're an enabler and a hippy one at that.

 

It's impossible to enforce the legitimacy of every cache. Suppose someone had their buddy climb the tree, while they waited below? Suppose they got the final coords of a multi from a previous finder? Suppose they PAF on a 5 difficulty hide? Suppose they got the final coords of a puzzle from their buddy who solved it? All you can enforce, and are entitled to enforce, is their name on the log. Since the numbers do NOT matter, and the stats can never be accurate, as comparable D/T finds are never alike, it is better to welcome honesty, rather than deleting finds where a cacher's name is in the logbook. Otherwise you are only encouraging TFTC, and with a signature in the logbook, regardless of the person who wrote it, there is nothing you can do about it. Is it really about the stats being accurate? or about openness and having fun?

 

Bull, being a cacher and just dealing with everything that goes along with it like it doesn't matter is what I expect from Toz. Never agreed with it. Plenty of excuses of everything than finding the cache. Would you like me to bow down?

You misinterpret what I say. The log in OP seems pretty silly to me. I'm not sure what the point would be to post found it for cache you've never been to, especially when announcing that you may look for it in future if you travel to Alaska. I've never said that that sort of vicarious find was ever justified.

 

There are some people who do accept the idea of some of the caches brought up in this thread that involve some long distance teamwork. Generally these are setup with two caches so that each cacher helps the other find a cache that is local. But some have been setup with one cache to find and the cache owner has invited those who participated in some part of the hunt to log the cache. There are no guidelines that forbid this setup.

 

The find count is not a score, and these non-traditional views of what is a find (or what deserves a Found log) are not harming the game. A few people will insist that you must find the final container and sign the log in order log to find online. Unfortunately, IMO, in telling cache owners not to delete online found logs based on additional logging requirements, Groundspeak felt in necessary to clarify that cache owner could still delete logs if the physical log is not signed. In doing so, many have gotten confused and believe that cache owners may only accept online found logs if the physical log is signed.

 

Groundspeak has taken action to stop certain types of vicarious logging. This primarily applies to virtual caches. A combination of early virtuals that were setup intentionally for vicarious logging, and the practice of some to vicariously log virtual caches that were never intended to be logged this way, resulted in a guideline saying that virtual caches must be visited before they can be logged online. Further, it became a policy to archive virtual caches if a cache owner invites vicarious logs or fails to take action against repeated vicarious logging.

 

No guidelines have been stated for physical cache, but TPTB have made it know that the intent of geocaching is to get people out of the house to find caches. My guess would be you can't just sit at home and log caches around the world all day without risking that your account will be banned. My guess is also that inviting that sort of vicarious log frowned on. Perhaps the guidelines will be revised to clarify this. It seems to me, however, that Groundspeak might continue to allow limited cooperative logging - even at long distances - given that people are enjoying this and it generally involves both ends going out and finding something.

[cezanne]

Unfortunately, IMO, in telling cache owners not to delete online found logs based on additional logging requirements, Groundspeak felt in necessary to clarify that cache owner could still delete logs if the physical log is not signed. In doing so, many have gotten confused and believe that cache owners may only accept online found logs if the physical log is signed.

 

The key question for me is rather whether the cache owners should accept online found logs if the physical log is not signed.

There are for example caches which are neither about the outdoor experience nor about finding the container.

For example, think of a cache with this 3D maze cache box hidden in a drive in manner in a city. I have encountered such a cache and left afetr a while since my patience did not suffice. Recently I encountered a log for another cache where the cacher took a photo of the container which was wrapped up in plastic and wrote that after a tiresome bike ride he was not feeling like unwrapping. I know this cacher and I'm sure that he would feel that a photo log (also when the photo is not load up to the site, but only sent to the hider) for the 3D maze cache is not ok.

 

Since I'm small it also happens to me frequently that I can see a cache, but cannot reach it.

 

The point I'm trying to make is that as soon as one starts to accept logs without a signature in the physical log book, one enters an area where it is hard to decide which logs are acceptable and which are not.

 

Some people in my area seem to think that having had the cache container in one's hand is a necessary requirement.

However, I do not think that it is very consistent and fair to approve photo logs for caches without pens (in particular if they come from cachers which never take a pen with them on purpose), but disapprove photo logs for e.g. for the 3D maze container cache or photo logs for a cache in say 2.30m height. Taking a pen along is definitely easier than taking along a ladder.

 

Cezanne

[Mr.Yuck]

>Do GS still accept these kind of caches?

 

offcourse NOT..

Or maybe they do...GC39840,GC10ARB. I have found both. I was FTF on the Wisconson one.

There's one in Seattle. I have it on my mental ignore list, even though I see it on the maps every time I'm planning caching downtown. I probably should make use of the handy dandy ignore list that Groundspeak has provided us with.

 

Well, if you haven't done it in 7.5 years, you probably don't want to bother. Yes, it was February 2005 that feature was released. Bookmark lists came with it on the same update too. Don't worry about it, I know tons of long tenured cachers who don't use the ignore list at all. Me, I'm apparently a Geo-snob. Guilty as charged.

 

Armchair caches? Do tell

Here are a couple of which I'm aware:

 

Team PodCacher's Treasure Cache (PTC) - But you'll have to get out of your armchair long enough to get to a mailbox.

 

Trojan Horse 2 - Once upon a time, you were allowed to log a find by sending the solved puzzle coordinates to the owner. The cache description was changed, and it appears that nobody has vicariously logged a find since February.

 

I looked at both,

 

I'll be honest, I was confused, which in turn made be very uninterested

 

I was very confused by the Team Podcacher cache too, but I think I have it figured out. Team Podcacher, i.e. Sonny and Sandy are about as famous as Geocachers can get within the community. I'm sure Groudspeak is aware of that "armchair" cache and is fine with it. And who knows, it may have even passed muster with a reviewer back in 2006 anyways, but wouldn't slide by today.

 

The 2nd one is by the late Sven. That too confused me, but I'm going to guess he advertised the armchair findability in one or more of his videos? Sounds like you had to email Sven to armchair log? I'll bet the ability to armchair log it passed along with Sven.

 

P.S. I'm loving this term "vicariously" for armchair logging.

Edited August 25, 2012 by Mr.Yuck

[+OZ2CPU]

come on.. all the time spend in this thread, could have been used to go out and find a REAL cache..

you know, find it, open it, sign its logbook, FOR REAL, then go home and log a found-it,

now how does that feel ?? to find a cache for real.. to play by the current rules.

it feel good I can tell you, I did it 6 times allready today :-)

[+mikemtn]

I'm pretty sure that the Founding Fathers of Geocaching had to make a lot of concessions to the way the game would be played when it evolved from a hobby to a business.

[4wheelin_fool]

I'm pretty sure that the Founding Fathers of Geocaching had to make a lot of concessions to the way the game would be played when it evolved from a hobby to a business.

 

The original game was to find a container filled with swag in which you traded items, and left a detailed log in the actual cache. The online log was secondary, but also indicated trades. Today there are mostly micros to boost find scores, no items of any value, and just a logsheet to prove you were there. The emphasis on numbers and stats has dominated the game and taken over. The adventure of hiking out in the woods and finding a box full of interesting items, as well of logs, is mostly non existant. There is only a list of names that is rarely audited, and sometimes a small to regular box of junk. It appears that many people would rather have cachers sign a short online TFTC to hide any "cheating", rather than being honest. The protection of find points on whether the cacher actually was at the cache is absurd when it is apparent that they don't count anyhow. The game is played outside, not inside policing logs and gazing at numbers.

[+Glenn]

As a cache owner if this vicarious logging of caches were to become a thing then I would have little intensive to hide new caches or maintain my old caches. But then I am old school with the reason that I hide and find caches. To bring people to an interesting place.

[+CanadianRockies]

As a cache owner if this vicarious logging of caches were to become a thing then I would have little intensive to hide new caches or maintain my old caches. But then I am old school with the reason that I hide and find caches. To bring people to an interesting place.

If vicarious finding of caches becomes commonplace, then maybe the appropriate response would be to vicariously hide our caches. It certainly would reduce maintenance issues.

[+CanadianRockies]

Armchair caches? Do tell

Here are a couple of which I'm aware:

 

Team PodCacher's Treasure Cache (PTC) - But you'll have to get out of your armchair long enough to get to a mailbox.

 

Trojan Horse 2 - Once upon a time, you were allowed to log a find by sending the solved puzzle coordinates to the owner. The cache description was changed, and it appears that nobody has vicariously logged a find since February.

I looked at both,

 

I'll be honest, I was confused, which in turn made be very uninterested

I was very confused by the Team Podcacher cache too, but I think I have it figured out. Team Podcacher, i.e. Sonny and Sandy are about as famous as Geocachers can get within the community. I'm sure Groudspeak is aware of that "armchair" cache and is fine with it. And who knows, it may have even passed muster with a reviewer back in 2006 anyways, but wouldn't slide by today.

If you snail mail Team Podcacher a swag item (preferably a signature item), then they will add that item to their "prize vault" (i.e., items awarded to their contest winners). They will then sign your name on the physical log book in their Team PodCacher's Treasure Cache(PTC) cache and notify you by email so you can log your "find" online.

 

The 2nd one is by the late Sven. That too confused me, but I'm going to guess he advertised the armchair findability in one or more of his videos? Sounds like you had to email Sven to armchair log? I'll bet the ability to armchair log it passed along with Sven.

Both the cache listing page and one of his videos mentioned that he would sign your name on the Trojan Horse 2 cache's physical log if you emailed him the correct coordinates. (It's a puzzle cache.) The cache listing page was edited after his death. If you look at "Found It" logs in Feb. 2012 and earlier, you will see numerous vicarious "finds."

[+Glenn]

If you snail mail Team Podcacher a swag item (preferably a signature item), then they will add that item to their "prize vault" (i.e., items awarded to their contest winners). They will then sign your name on the physical log book in their Team PodCacher's Treasure Cache(PTC) cache and notify you by email so you can log your "find" online.

Swag for cache?

Take that idea one step further and you'd have cash for cache. You could list mystery caches in other states and offer to sign caches near your home for other cachers for a nominal fee, errr, I mean, swag in the form of currency.

[Mr.Yuck]

If you snail mail Team Podcacher a swag item (preferably a signature item), then they will add that item to their "prize vault" (i.e., items awarded to their contest winners). They will then sign your name on the physical log book in their Team PodCacher's Treasure Cache(PTC) cache and notify you by email so you can log your "find" online.

Swag for cache?

Take that idea one step further and you'd have cash for cache. You could list mystery caches in other states and offer to sign caches near your home for other cachers for a nominal fee, errr, I mean, swag in the form of currency.

 

Eh, I'm OK with that cache, although I doubt I'd personally do it. I listen mainly to Geocachingpodcast.com anyways, mainly because I can't subscribe to Podcacher.com on my WindowsPhone.