Report a Geocacher

[+luisyopr]

Is there a way to report a geocacher account? For some reason, a new geocacher (TheWolf572) started logging caches without actually finding them and I just got curious if there's a way to report it. He saw that lot of geocachers from the area are complaining and he decided to log a few geocaches with sarcastic messages. I believe Geocaching is a family and fun game to unite people, so I think he is doing wrong.

 

Let me know your thoughts about it.

[jholly]

.

Edited November 17, 2012 by jholly

[Keystone]

There is no "report button" for behavior on the main website like you see here in the forums for reporting posts that violate the forum guidelines. So, if you're asking for one, that would be a feature suggestion.

 

In the meantime you can write to Geocaching.com's Community Relations staff by sending an email to contact@Groundspeak.com with full details of what you've observed. It helps to review the Website Terms of Use document so that you can tie the behavior you're seeing to specific provisions of the ToU.

[Laserion]

I noticed that too. On November 10, 2012 I was opening cache pages that I had failed to find, from the map, to read who else had found them after I didn't, or who else had had difficulty with the same as me. I noticed THEWOLF572's log and I thought "Hey, that was just now, today!" It was about 8:30am.

 

As I opened other cache pages from the surrounding region, I noticed his name on the logs. I decided to check his list of found caches, and there were a lot on the same day. I thought that he must have gotten up really early for logging all those caches at 8:30am, or they were old finds and he forgot to change the date of the find.

 

I went on browsing other stuff, and around 10am I decided to refresh his page. Now there were even more caches on his list, along a route. I thought "Either he's driving around finding a bunch of caches and then stopping to log them, or he's cheating."

 

A few days (or weeks?) later I saw the maintenance log from the owner of one of those caches, claiming that he didn't see the Wolf's signature on the paper, so he deleted the log. So, yep, he's "finding" the caches... from his desk at home.

 

[+PhilatSea]

We have a cacher here in the Vancouver area that was a well respected cacher with 10,000+ find that recently logged some 350+ caches and mega events that he did not do or attend. It was politely brought to his attention and he says it was a GSAK error. He has yet to correct his GSAK error except for a few removals and says why everyone does it. He has logged caches on days he hasn't cached so he can keep his streak going and manipulate his stats for Challenge caches.

He wonders why no one wants him to attend caching 101 courses to teach them.

 

Many here in the Vancouver area would love to see this corrected but no one is willing to do it. CO's don't want top deal with it either.

[+cerberus1]

We have a cacher here in the Vancouver area that was a well respected cacher with 10,000+ find that recently logged some 350+ caches and mega events that he did not do or attend. It was politely brought to his attention and he says it was a GSAK error. He has yet to correct his GSAK error except for a few removals and says why everyone does it. He has logged caches on days he hasn't cached so he can keep his streak going and manipulate his stats for Challenge caches.

He wonders why no one wants him to attend caching 101 courses to teach them.

 

Many here in the Vancouver area would love to see this corrected but no one is willing to do it. CO's don't want top deal with it either.

- Bolding is mine.

"Was" is the key word here. If you politely brought it up to him and he hasn't done anything about it - you can.

Cache maintenance, along with deleting erroneous logs is the CO's responsibility with having that hide.

Simply have COs do maintenance on hides, taking a pic of the log showing it's missing and post it when showing on their cache pages they did maintenance.

- Delete, rinse, repeat.

When 10,000 becomes 9,000, maybe the cheater will finally realize the jig is up and either change his ways or quit.

[AZcachemeister]

... was a well respected cacher with 10,000+ find(s) ...

 

...it was a GSAK error.

 

The problem is that those with a huge number of 'finds' tend to get (sometimes unwarranted) respect, and sometimes can get away with almost anything.

 

GSAK does not make 'errors'...the person telling it what to do makes the error (and sometime the error is thinking they can get away with something).

[+maxx borchovski]

Why does it matter if someone spuriously claims a find? It doesn't effect my game, it doesn't spoil my hides. They know its fake but who are they impressing? Having looked at some peoples caching history and all they have is hundreds of TFTC log entries, then how much fun did they have caching? This is a non-competitive game and as there is no winner, should anyone get annoyed because a few sad individuals think that their inflated numbers will impress other players? The people I have spoken to through this game all enjoy their caching and hiding and pretty much all have less than 2000 finds in a number of years playing. The type of player I aspire to emulate are the ones who leave good cache logs, place caches in good locations or inventive caches. Number hounds who spend a day on a 100+ power trail must need their head seeing to in my opinion. If I want to spend the day doing the same repetitive task, over and over and over again, I'll go to work. Caching is about the journey, the puzzle, the hunt and the find.

[team tisri]

Why does it matter if someone spuriously claims a find? It doesn't effect my game, it doesn't spoil my hides. They know its fake but who are they impressing? Having looked at some peoples caching history and all they have is hundreds of TFTC log entries, then how much fun did they have caching? This is a non-competitive game and as there is no winner, should anyone get annoyed because a few sad individuals think that their inflated numbers will impress other players? The people I have spoken to through this game all enjoy their caching and hiding and pretty much all have less than 2000 finds in a number of years playing. The type of player I aspire to emulate are the ones who leave good cache logs, place caches in good locations or inventive caches. Number hounds who spend a day on a 100+ power trail must need their head seeing to in my opinion. If I want to spend the day doing the same repetitive task, over and over and over again, I'll go to work. Caching is about the journey, the puzzle, the hunt and the find.

 

Very true. It's a shame when so much effort is spent in an attempt to stop people cheating, when cheating doesn't change it for anyone else. In many ways "cheating" is something of a sliding scale:

 

What about a group of people who form a team to break a fiendish puzzle where one or two members contribute little if anything to the solution? Do those people cheat by claiming a find?

 

What about a group that goes out mob-handed - one person finds the cache and a dozen sign the log? Do the 11 who didn't spot it cheat?

 

What about a group that sets out to do a 5/5 cache where different people complete different stages of it such that nobody in the group does the full thing? Do they all cheat?

 

What of the person who visits the area where the cache should have been, demonstrates it's not there, and claims a find anyway with the permission of the CO? Is that cheating?

 

If I claim a cache at the top of a tall tree having done nothing more strenuous than reaching the base of the tree with you and then called a few pointers up the tree to help you spot where the cache is, is that cheating?

 

More crucially, does doing any of these things make the cache any more or less enjoyable for anyone else finding it?

[+dprovan]

Why does it matter if someone spuriously claims a find?

It matters because the Found log is information about the cache used by other people. Lying about whether the cache is there can cause someone the next day to waste lots of time on a cache that would otherwise be obviously missing, to give just one example.

 

Besides, I don't like liars. Are you asking me not to judge him for lying?

[+K13]

Why does it matter if someone spuriously claims a find?

It matters because the Found log is information about the cache used by other people. Lying about whether the cache is there can cause someone the next day to waste lots of time on a cache that would otherwise be obviously missing, to give just one example.

 

Besides, I don't like liars. Are you asking me not to judge him for lying?

 

^THIS

[AZcachemeister]

 

Besides, I don't like liars. Are you asking me not to judge him for lying?

 

^THIS^

 

If I am playing a casual game of cards with someone, and notice they are cheating...I probably won't play with them again.

 

Unfortunately, in Geocaching, you can't not play with someone...we are all in it together.

 

Thus, social pressure is all we have to keep others on the puritanical straight and narrow.

 

Does it affect me if someone logs a false find, or logs a cache seventeen times?

 

Today, no it doesn't.

 

But, if such behavior becomes the norm it might because I will probably find something else to do with my time.

 

We are not playing in a vacuum, new cachers are watching what others do, and do the same.

 

How do you think the TFTC log became so 'popular'?

[+NYPaddleCacher]

 

More crucially, does doing any of these things make the cache any more or less enjoyable for anyone else finding it?

 

Possibly. Although your examples don't address cases of armchair logging (which is what the OPs complaint is really about) that particular form of "cheating" *can* have an impact on others. There are most likely a lot older virtual caches and other caches in which the cache owner is not very active. If a lot of people discover that they can armchair log those cases, eventually it can be brought to the attention of a reviewer who will archive the listing, denying all those that might want to make a legitimate find on that cache. One could argue that if an old virtual cache or traditional cache has an inactive owner it should be archived (if it's being actively maintained by the local community). However, many of those caches can be enjoyed by others that find them legitimately even without an active owner, and a string of armchair logs may be all that is necessary to stop people from enjoying a find at that location.

[+PhilatSea]

I have read the comments since my post above.

 

While I agree it shouldn't affect me it does. When one claims to be a high time cacher such as Adroit Seeker and done so many unique caches and puzzles and is looked up to by those just starting off in caching it poses a problem. He figures since he is the the area puzzle guru he should teach caching 101 courses on puzzles. The problem becomes do you want someone who lies and cheats to teach new cachers that it is okay to do this? Do they say well he is a high time cacher and it is okay for him and no one does anything about it so lets do it. When it becomes too late that it becomes common place then what?

 

When ones says they did a cache and the cache is currently in the CO's hands for repair it is sort of obvious that he could have not done it. How about going on a caching adventure and logging hundreds of caches that your team mates didn't log or do and yet you say it is okay.

 

It just makes a mockery of the rules. So why have any rules?

[team tisri]

Why does it matter if someone spuriously claims a find?

It matters because the Found log is information about the cache used by other people. Lying about whether the cache is there can cause someone the next day to waste lots of time on a cache that would otherwise be obviously missing, to give just one example.

 

Besides, I don't like liars. Are you asking me not to judge him for lying?

 

If someone claims a find in isolation then potentially I may go and look for a cache that isn't there. But perhaps the previous person to log a find really did find it and it got muggled between then and when I went hunting. Ultimately if I go looking for a geocache I have to accept I may not find it. It might be hidden so well I can't find it, it might be surrounded by so many muggles I can't search for it, it might not be there at all. If you're really going to be swayed by a single Found log in the face of a dozen DNFs all saying it should have been an easy find but apparently wasn't there then perhaps the issue isn't the bogus finder.

 

I don't like liars much either but when someone lies in a way that makes no difference at all to my life I've really got bigger things to worry about than whether they've got more smilies on a web site than they deserve.

[team tisri]

 

Besides, I don't like liars. Are you asking me not to judge him for lying?

 

^THIS^

 

If I am playing a casual game of cards with someone, and notice they are cheating...I probably won't play with them again.

 

Unfortunately, in Geocaching, you can't not play with someone...we are all in it together.

 

Thus, social pressure is all we have to keep others on the puritanical straight and narrow.

 

Does it affect me if someone logs a false find, or logs a cache seventeen times?

 

Today, no it doesn't.

 

But, if such behavior becomes the norm it might because I will probably find something else to do with my time.

 

We are not playing in a vacuum, new cachers are watching what others do, and do the same.

 

How do you think the TFTC log became so 'popular'?

 

The thing with geocaching is that for all we might use the same web site we don't all play together. If I play golf with someone and they cheat the end result is likely to be that they beat me when I should have beaten them. If I find the same geocaches as someone else I get to enjoy them, or not enjoy them, based on how I interact with the cache and everything relating to the cache. If that someone else claimed a find based on sighting it from a distance and I claimed a find based on a strenuous climb/scramble/swim/whatever then if anything I enjoyed it more than they did for the same virtual reward. So they haven't cheated me out of anything and to be frank I couldn't care less if they claim it or not.

 

If a tidal wave of new cachers come along and start claiming they found a cache at the top of a tall tree based on sighting it from the ground, how does that affect my enjoyment of the caches I've found? If the cache owner cares enough to delete the logs that's fine, if they are inactive or don't care if people log it without finding it then that's fine too. If I choose to climb the tree and claim the find, if I choose to write a note saying something like "I'm too fat for this but it looks like fun for those lighter than me" or whatever, it doesn't affect anyone else.

 

We can argue the "but what if everybody..." endlessly. If everybody put a film pot behind a sign then geocaching would become intensely dull. Luckily, despite how it sometimes seems, not everybody puts a film pot behind a sign - some people hide more imaginative caches.

[team tisri]

 

More crucially, does doing any of these things make the cache any more or less enjoyable for anyone else finding it?

 

Possibly. Although your examples don't address cases of armchair logging (which is what the OPs complaint is really about) that particular form of "cheating" *can* have an impact on others. There are most likely a lot older virtual caches and other caches in which the cache owner is not very active. If a lot of people discover that they can armchair log those cases, eventually it can be brought to the attention of a reviewer who will archive the listing, denying all those that might want to make a legitimate find on that cache. One could argue that if an old virtual cache or traditional cache has an inactive owner it should be archived (if it's being actively maintained by the local community). However, many of those caches can be enjoyed by others that find them legitimately even without an active owner, and a string of armchair logs may be all that is necessary to stop people from enjoying a find at that location.

 

So why does it matter if someone else can't claim a smiley face on a cache that the CO wasn't maintaining any more? If anything you've made a better case for new virtuals to be allowed than endless attempts to police the rules in ways that simply can't be enforced.

[+briansnat]

Why does it matter if someone spuriously claims a find?

It matters because the Found log is information about the cache used by other people. Lying about whether the cache is there can cause someone the next day to waste lots of time on a cache that would otherwise be obviously missing, to give just one example.

 

Besides, I don't like liars. Are you asking me not to judge him for lying?

 

If someone claims a find in isolation then potentially I may go and look for a cache that isn't there. But perhaps the previous person to log a find really did find it and it got muggled between then and when I went hunting. Ultimately if I go looking for a geocache I have to accept I may not find it. It might be hidden so well I can't find it, it might be surrounded by so many muggles I can't search for it, it might not be there at all. If you're really going to be swayed by a single Found log in the face of a dozen DNFs all saying it should have been an easy find but apparently wasn't there then perhaps the issue isn't the bogus finder.

 

I don't like liars much either but when someone lies in a way that makes no difference at all to my life I've really got bigger things to worry about than whether they've got more smilies on a web site than they deserve.

 

We all take a chance that a cache may not be there, but we don't need other cachers deliberately misleading us. Maybe it's a remote cache that hasn't been found in months and people are watching it and waiting for a find to confirm it's there before making the trip.

 

Or maybe it's the newbie who can't find a missing cache but wastes an hour searching because "it was just found this morning".

 

Or perhaps it's a cache owner who gets a couple of DNFs on his cache and is about to make a maint check when the bogus find is logged. So he puts off the maint run believing the cache is there and other cachers then search for the missing cache, wasting their time and gas.

 

Phony logs can and do inconvenience other cachers, so I think it's a pretty scummy thing to do.

[team tisri]

Why does it matter if someone spuriously claims a find?

It matters because the Found log is information about the cache used by other people. Lying about whether the cache is there can cause someone the next day to waste lots of time on a cache that would otherwise be obviously missing, to give just one example.

 

Besides, I don't like liars. Are you asking me not to judge him for lying?

 

If someone claims a find in isolation then potentially I may go and look for a cache that isn't there. But perhaps the previous person to log a find really did find it and it got muggled between then and when I went hunting. Ultimately if I go looking for a geocache I have to accept I may not find it. It might be hidden so well I can't find it, it might be surrounded by so many muggles I can't search for it, it might not be there at all. If you're really going to be swayed by a single Found log in the face of a dozen DNFs all saying it should have been an easy find but apparently wasn't there then perhaps the issue isn't the bogus finder.

 

I don't like liars much either but when someone lies in a way that makes no difference at all to my life I've really got bigger things to worry about than whether they've got more smilies on a web site than they deserve.

 

We all take a chance that a cache may not be there, but we don't need other cachers deliberately misleading us. Maybe it's a remote cache that hasn't been found in months and people are watching it and waiting for a find to confirm it's there before making the trip.

 

Or maybe it's the newbie who can't find a missing cache but wastes an hour searching because "it was just found this morning".

 

Or perhaps it's a cache owner who gets a couple of DNFs on his cache and is about to make a maint check when the bogus find is logged. So he puts off the maint run believing the cache is there and other cachers then search for the missing cache, wasting their time and gas.

 

Phony logs can and do inconvenience other cachers, so I think it's a pretty scummy thing to do.

 

Sure, I see where you're coming from. I just think that if you're so concerned with "wasting time and gas" then perhaps you shouldn't be driving any distance to look for sandwich boxes.

 

By the same reasoning should we turn off the notifications of caches being published? I've been out a few times aiming for an FTF only to find the CO disabled it soon after I logged my DNF because of a problem with the listing, or the coordinates were 500 feet off because they'd got something wrong when they set it. Those times were a waste of time and effort when seen one way but that's the chance I freely chose to take.

 

It's not as if anyone is forced to go out and hunt a geocache.

 

Don't get me wrong, I understand entirely why you'd be annoyed about bogus logs. I just think Groundspeak have bigger fish to fry than constantly trying to weed out the few that cheat, when there's no way of completely stopping it. Even if there were a means of reporting a cacher who made bogus logs, how does that recover the time or gas you spent hunting that remote cache only to conclude the last Found log was a lie?

Edited January 14, 2013 by team tisri

[+tozainamboku]

Maybe it's time for someone to post the Darth Vader vs. Yoda chart.

 

There are clearly a broad spectrum of how the logs are used/abused and quite a difference as to how the abuse may or may not effect others enjoyment of the game.

 

Way back in the day, Jeremy would post that Groundspeak wasn't going to be the log police but that he reserved the right to take action if he thought the website was being abused.

 

While there is no official Groundspeak policy that I know of, it does seem that certain things are seen as abusing the website. So far I've seen:

1. Automated logging bots - There have been several incidents of someone creating an automated tool to log many caches. The site uses throttling but that doesn't stop these altogether (after all you need to allow people to legitimately log power trails). When reported the accounts have been banned, and I believe that sometimes the IP address was blocked as well. In the most cases the logs were removed by Groundspeak.
   
2. Violation of the TOUs - logs that violate the site TOUs can be reported. These accounts may get a warning but if the if violation is serious enough, or if it continues, the account will be banned. I know that abusive post are taken very seriously aw well as obvious attempts to use the logs as spam.
   
3. Pocket logs - There was a practice for a short time of people bringing the log from some difficult cache to an event and allowing people to sign it to get credit. When Groundspeak found out about it they archived the caches if the owners would not remove the bogus logs.
   
4. Couch potato logs - Groundspeak, in their wisdom, has decided to treat couch potato logs on virtual caches as abuse. If a virtual cache gets the reputation of allowing couch potato logs and the owner does not delete them, the cache gets archived.
   

 

I understand where team tisri is coming from when complaining about GS archiving cache because of couch potato or pocket logs. These don't actually prevent cachers who really want to find these caches from doing so. Archiving (and especially archiving with a lock) does prevent one from finding and logging these caches legitimately. However, I've accepted that GS interprets these logs as abuse.

 

Note that occasional logging of the wrong cache in error or having a looser definition of "find" that doesn't include signing the log is not considered abuse. Cache owners can delete logs in these cases but are not required to (I know of no sanction against a cache owner or the cache in these cases).

[+BulldogBlitz]

A tangential reason this stuff goes on, someone mentioned cache owners deleting the non-logs. I know first hand, this is a drama filled undertaking.

 

The drama llama would be a massive beast in the case of a 10k cacher losing 1k worth of finds. Many cachers do not see the usefullness in expending that much time and energy over a pixel or three.

[team tisri]

Maybe it's time for someone to post the Darth Vader vs. Yoda chart.

 

There are clearly a broad spectrum of how the logs are used/abused and quite a difference as to how the abuse may or may not effect others enjoyment of the game.

 

Way back in the day, Jeremy would post that Groundspeak wasn't going to be the log police but that he reserved the right to take action if he thought the website was being abused.

 

While there is no official Groundspeak policy that I know of, it does seem that certain things are seen as abusing the website. So far I've seen:

 

[*]Automated logging bots - There have been several incidents of someone creating an automated tool to log many caches. The site uses throttling but that doesn't stop these altogether (after all you need to allow people to legitimately log power trails). When reported the accounts have been banned, and I believe that sometimes the IP address was blocked as well. In the most cases the logs were removed by Groundspeak.

[*]Violation of the TOUs - logs that violate the site TOUs can be reported. These accounts may get a warning but if the if violation is serious enough, or if it continues, the account will be banned. I know that abusive post are taken very seriously aw well as obvious attempts to use the logs as spam.

 

These approaches make at least some sense.

 

[*]Pocket logs - There was a practice for a short time of people bringing the log from some difficult cache to an event and allowing people to sign it to get credit. When Groundspeak found out about it they archived the caches if the owners would not remove the bogus logs.

 

It's clear that these are people claiming finds having not found it but is it really any different to someone who climbs 50 feet up a tree, brings the cache down to the ground for a bunch of caching buddies to sign the log, then climbing the tree again to replace the cache? The end result is still that a bunch of people signed the log having not done what was required to find the cache.

 

[*]Couch potato logs - Groundspeak, in their wisdom, has decided to treat couch potato logs on virtual caches as abuse. If a virtual cache gets the reputation of allowing couch potato logs and the owner does not delete them, the cache gets archived.

 

Not sure why virtuals are singled out for this, if cheating is the problem people are making it out to be it seems that people are making couch potato logs of physical caches as well as virtuals.

 

Note that occasional logging of the wrong cache in error or having a looser definition of "find" that doesn't include signing the log is not considered abuse. Cache owners can delete logs in these cases but are not required to (I know of no sanction against a cache owner or the cache in these cases).

 

Any definition of "abuse" that includes a genuine error is obviously silly. It's also entirely possible to find a cache and be genuinely unable to sign the log, perhaps if it is soaked or the container is rusted shut. I don't see how claiming a find in these circumstances could possibly be considered abuse.

[+dprovan]

It's clear that these are people claiming finds having not found it but is it really any different to someone who climbs 50 feet up a tree, brings the cache down to the ground for a bunch of caching buddies to sign the log, then climbing the tree again to replace the cache? The end result is still that a bunch of people signed the log having not done what was required to find the cache.

The difference is obviously that a signature's on the physical log. Personally, I think whether that counts is up to the CO, but the way you put it makes climbing the tree start to sound a lot like an ALR.

 

Not sure why virtuals are singled out for this, if cheating is the problem people are making it out to be it seems that people are making couch potato logs of physical caches as well as virtuals.

I think virtuals are the main example because some people get the idea that the "virtual" aspect of virtual caches extends to allowing your presence at GZ to be virtual. It doesn't hurt that historically some COs have adopted the attitude. And, of course, a normal cache's log can be checked to find proof of an armchair log. While other armchair logs are still a problem, I don't think they're as common.

[team tisri]

It's clear that these are people claiming finds having not found it but is it really any different to someone who climbs 50 feet up a tree, brings the cache down to the ground for a bunch of caching buddies to sign the log, then climbing the tree again to replace the cache? The end result is still that a bunch of people signed the log having not done what was required to find the cache.

The difference is obviously that a signature's on the physical log. Personally, I think whether that counts is up to the CO, but the way you put it makes climbing the tree start to sound a lot like an ALR.

 

I don't think it's an ALR to say you have to sign the log to claim the cache and insist that people don't sign the log unless they actually climbed the tree to retrieve or replace it. Irritating for me, being - ahem - gravitationally challenged to the point I don't do tree climbing if the cache is more than about 10 feet off the ground, but when the terrain is high it's that way for a reason. It's a bit pointless to place a cache in some improbable location if someone can claim a find based on nothing more than sighting it from the ground.

 

Not sure why virtuals are singled out for this, if cheating is the problem people are making it out to be it seems that people are making couch potato logs of physical caches as well as virtuals.

I think virtuals are the main example because some people get the idea that the "virtual" aspect of virtual caches extends to allowing your presence at GZ to be virtual. It doesn't hurt that historically some COs have adopted the attitude. And, of course, a normal cache's log can be checked to find proof of an armchair log. While other armchair logs are still a problem, I don't think they're as common.

 

I don't think that sort of lax attitude is in any way confined to virtuals. I've claimed a Find a few times when I couldn't mark the log book for any reason - in such situations if it's possible I'll take a photo of the cache (opened, with the log book clearly visible) and offer to email it to the CO, or offer the CO a detailed description of the cache and exactly where it was. To date I've been taken up on that offer by two owners, the others didn't even respond. So on that basis I find it hard to believe that armchair logging of virtuals is more of a problem than armchair logging of physical caches. The number of cachers who appear to sign up, place a couple of lame caches, then abandon the game within a couple of months and leave their caches out until they get muggled merely makes it easier to claim a find - it's not rocket science for anyone so inclined to do a search for anything with the "needs maintenance" attribute set, look for caches where people complain the log is wet, then write "Found easily, couldn't sign the log as it's soaked" and rack up virtual finds that way.

 

A physical cache's log can be checked (assuming it hasn't disintegrated due to being soaked) but I'd bet that a very small proportion of cache owners actually do check it.

[+Calbux]

Why does it matter if someone spuriously claims a find? It doesn't effect my game, it doesn't spoil my hides.

More crucially, does doing any of these things make the cache any more or less enjoyable for anyone else finding it?

 

I don't know about others, but for me, yes, it matters. I'm not a super-cacher, and it's frustrating to look for and not find a cache. When I'm in the field, at GZ, I look to hints and recent logs to see if it's me or if others have had a difficult time. If there are logs recently, that tells me the cache should be there and okay. If cheaters claim a find - - say, by describing everything about being there except they actually never found the cache - - it leads others to believe there is one when there may not be anymore. And it leads the CO to think, perhaps, that their cache is fine when it's not. I recently maintained a cache that was open, soaked and laying away from GZ. I wonder how many of the folks who came by recently actually did, or if they simply said so.

 

Calbux

[+GrayHawk613]

Why does it matter if someone spuriously claims a find?

It matters because the Found log is information about the cache used by other people. Lying about whether the cache is there can cause someone the next day to waste lots of time on a cache that would otherwise be obviously missing, to give just one example.

 

Besides, I don't like liars. Are you asking me not to judge him for lying?

 

Perfectly said. I had found a geocache before I was into geocaching so when I did have a geocaching account I tried to guess what geocache I had found. I did and logged it as found. But my geoconscience prevailed and I deleted the log,only to later find out that I had guessed right.

[+GrayHawk613]

Well I think we should quit talking and start sending emails to those bogus geocachers.

[+salmondan]

For the most part those high number cachers are all a farce anyway you know. #1 doesn't sign logs- has several stamps that he and his crew use- exchange emails to clarify data before logging, but what the hey- it's all a game anyway yes?

[+niraD]

For the most part those high number cachers are all a farce anyway you know. #1 doesn't sign logs- has several stamps that he and his crew use- exchange emails to clarify data before logging, but what the hey- it's all a game anyway yes?

I'm confused. What's wrong with using stamps to sign logs? I know someone whose official signature is a stamp; if it's good enough for her bank, then it's good enough for geocaching.

 

And why is it a problem to exchange email to clarify data before logging? On group trips, I often end up emailing a list of caches found to everyone in the group. And occasionally, group members even email corrections back. Why would that be a problem?

[+salmondan]

For the most part those high number cachers are all a farce anyway you know. #1 doesn't sign logs- has several stamps that he and his crew use- exchange emails to clarify data before logging, but what the hey- it's all a game anyway yes?

I'm confused. What's wrong with using stamps to sign logs? I know someone whose official signature is a stamp; if it's good enough for her bank, then it's good enough for geocaching.

 

And why is it a problem to exchange email to clarify data before logging? On group trips, I often end up emailing a list of caches found to everyone in the group. And occasionally, group members even email corrections back. Why would that be a problem?

 

Your described scenario of course is not a problem. Because you were there. But should you give me your stamp, and I do a caching run and share the details for you to log.... Well , that's a twist that some might not find is in the true spirit of the game.

[+crzylvrs14]

I emailed the address above but I had someone steal my geocache and then tell me that they stole it. I am beyond pissed! I want to report this punk kid for stealing my cache. His name is zacharyfos.

Edited February 28, 2017 by Keystone
potty language removed by moderator

[+cerberus1]

I emailed the address above but I had someone steal my geocache and then tell me that they stole it. I am beyond pissed! I want to report this punk kid for stealing my cache. His name is zacharyfos.

Don't be surprised if you're the one who gets an email from HQ for your language on the cache page.

 

Simply delete his log (and probably yours too...), and replace with a calm note that you've been muggled and will decide what to do about it.

- Give you a bit a time to cool down.

 

The cache maggot's a basic member, and you could replace and make it pmo, but making the hide pmo won't mean much unless you move it a distance away.