Reporting a Cacher

[+vorticity]

Does anyone know how to report a Cacher who is logging Virtuals, WebCams, and a variety of other cache types all over the world on the same day. This guy just logged two of the hardest virtual caches in the US. One of the two is at 14,000 feet. The 12 mile trail to it and the Class 4 climb is under several feet of snow. Vort

[+Team Bostradamus]

Maybe send him a message and tell him it's unethical... Or just let it go, he's not impressing anyone but himself!

You could also contact the CO's of the caches and let them make the call...

[+firestars]

Report them for what exactly?

[+StarBrand]

Let the cache owner's know - and let them deal with it as they see fit. Nobody else is going to do much about it.

[+markcase]

Moving to the appropriate forum.

 

Mark Case

Education Forum Moderator

[+clarinetqueen]

I just started a thread about this - I think we're talking about the same person.

 

I don't think that everyone should just look the other way. Letting armchair logs happen puts the virtual caches in danger of being archived.

[+NeverSummer]

Email to contact @geocaching.com if you feel it is necessary. There have been reports of other cachers doing the same in other threads. In some cases, accounts have been locked and logs deleted.

 

If you don't email contact@, then just find a way to let it go.

[+cerberus1]

Just like in another thread just started...

The CO gets notified when someone logs.

Why do others feel a need to get involved in something that (unless you own one of the caches) is none of your business?

[+Viajero Perdido]

Fake-logging a challenging cache diminishes the accomplishment of those who do so legitimately.

[+macatac1961]

Are you sure it's not someone just catching upon their logs? Or who changed their name?

[AZcachemeister]

Are you sure it's not someone just catching upon their logs? Or who changed their name?

 

Viable possibilities, but those who do this are usually up-front about what they are doing.

[+cerberus1]

I understand that fake logs aren't a nice way to play.

- But taking this into the forums isn't always a good idea.

Instead of helping, it puts the caches in question under scrutiny.

Hopefully the COs of these hides are still active.

Due to their already fragile status (virtuals, web cams...) any other iffy logs besides this last faker could end a hide that's lasted quite a while.

- Archived 'cause someone meant well.

Doesn't quite sound right does it...

[+BlueDeuce]

Post your concerns to contact@geocaching.com. They seem like friendly folk.

Edited February 23, 2013 by BlueDeuce

[+the4dirtydogs]

I don't understand why people would log caches like this. I find it even funnier how upset some players get about it. What exactly is this person hurting? This is just a game. I wouldn't worry about it unless it was my cache, then again if it was my cache I wouldn't care one bit.

[+BlueDeuce]

I don't understand why people would log caches like this. I find it even funnier how upset some players get about it. What exactly is this person hurting? This is just a game. I wouldn't worry about it unless it was my cache, then again if it was my cache I wouldn't care one bit.

 

So in other words you don't sign every cache you claimed to have found.

[+Crow-T-Robot]

 

I don't think that everyone should just look the other way. Letting armchair logs happen puts the virtual caches in danger of being archived.

 

No, virtual caches with absentee owners puts them in danger of being archived. Armchair logging doesn't change the fact that there isn't a cache owner in place to clean up the mess.

[+jellis]

Email to contact @geocaching.com if you feel it is necessary. There have been reports of other cachers doing the same in other threads. In some cases, accounts have been locked and logs deleted.

 

If you don't email contact@, then just find a way to let it go.

I agree contact geocaching.

[+NeverSummer]

It appears the offending log on at least one of the virts has been deleted...

[AZcachemeister]

It appears the offending log on at least one of the virts has been deleted...

 

Hopefully the logger will have learned something, and clean up their own mess.

[+the4dirtydogs]

I don't understand why people would log caches like this. I find it even funnier how upset some players get about it. What exactly is this person hurting? This is just a game. I wouldn't worry about it unless it was my cache, then again if it was my cache I wouldn't care one bit.

 

So in other words you don't sign every cache you claimed to have found.

I don't know where you got that from.

[+tozainamboku]

Verily, she should wear the scarlet A on her chest so that the people will know of Mistress Pryne's sin and shall not do likewise.

Edited February 22, 2013 by tozainamboku

[4wheelin_fool]

I don't understand why people would log caches like this. I find it even funnier how upset some players get about it. What exactly is this person hurting? This is just a game. I wouldn't worry about it unless it was my cache, then again if it was my cache I wouldn't care one bit.

 

They are abusing the website. If 100 people did the same thing it would be a chore to determine the real logs from the rest of the litter.

[+RecipeForDisaster]

There are other problems associated with false logs such as COs thinking their cache is okay after DNFs because someone 'found' it, cachers thinking a cache is accessible in the snow because it was 'found' recently after a storm, and just inaccurate information for future finders(recently seen: 'quick easy find' on something that was actually DNFd by many experienced cachers just because it was so difficult, another similar log on one that sounds like it's gone after a hurricane). I don't think it's benign when you take into account stuff like this...

[+the4dirtydogs]

I don't understand why people would log caches like this. I find it even funnier how upset some players get about it. What exactly is this person hurting? This is just a game. I wouldn't worry about it unless it was my cache, then again if it was my cache I wouldn't care one bit.

 

They are abusing the website. If 100 people did the same thing it would be a chore to determine the real logs from the rest of the litter.

Oh No they're abusing the site. Like I said I just don't worry about what others claim as a find. It just doesn't matter to me. But I do get a good laugh from posts like yours.

Edited February 22, 2013 by the4dirtydogs

[+the4dirtydogs]

There are other problems associated with false logs such as COs thinking their cache is okay after DNFs because someone 'found' it, cachers thinking a cache is accessible in the snow because it was 'found' recently after a storm, and just inaccurate information for future finders(recently seen: 'quick easy find' on something that was actually DNFd by many experienced cachers just because it was so difficult, another similar log on one that sounds like it's gone after a hurricane). I don't think it's benign when you take into account stuff like this...

Oh yeah I can see all these as real problems. Sorry I'm not seeing it.

Edited February 22, 2013 by the4dirtydogs

[+coman123]

If a fake log is on a cache you own, delete it,

If it's not move on, and play your own game

 

Life's too short to worry about other players actions

[+The A-Team]

There are other problems associated with false logs such as COs thinking their cache is okay after DNFs because someone 'found' it, cachers thinking a cache is accessible in the snow because it was 'found' recently after a storm, and just inaccurate information for future finders(recently seen: 'quick easy find' on something that was actually DNFd by many experienced cachers just because it was so difficult, another similar log on one that sounds like it's gone after a hurricane). I don't think it's benign when you take into account stuff like this...

Oh yeah I can see all these as real problems. Sorry I'm not seeing it.

You may roll your eyes, but those are real problems that I've seen with my own eyes. Bogus logs can and do cause problems for others.

[+NeverSummer]

This may seem like a silly thought...but I thought it:

What about posting about this issue in the German forum? If these common instances are generally isolated to cachers from that region/country, should this issue be brought to the attention of that growing community?

[+the4dirtydogs]

There are other problems associated with false logs such as COs thinking their cache is okay after DNFs because someone 'found' it, cachers thinking a cache is accessible in the snow because it was 'found' recently after a storm, and just inaccurate information for future finders(recently seen: 'quick easy find' on something that was actually DNFd by many experienced cachers just because it was so difficult, another similar log on one that sounds like it's gone after a hurricane). I don't think it's benign when you take into account stuff like this...

Oh yeah I can see all these as real problems. Sorry I'm not seeing it.

You may roll your eyes, but those are real problems that I've seen with my own eyes. Bogus logs can and do cause problems for others.

Explain to me what the problem is. The cache is either found or not found, or the cache is there or not there. I don't see what the problem could be by a person logging a bogus log. Really I don't. Find or Did Not Find, you can't blame the last finder if you cant find a cache that they so-called found. Just plain DUMB.

[+BlueDeuce]

I don't understand why people would log caches like this. I find it even funnier how upset some players get about it. What exactly is this person hurting? This is just a game. I wouldn't worry about it unless it was my cache, then again if it was my cache I wouldn't care one bit.

 

So in other words you don't sign every cache you claimed to have found.

I don't know where you got that from.

 

Your post followed by the lack of denial. I have far more respect for people who admit their caching habits.

 

Afterwards we can have an honest discussion about what is right or wrong.

Edited February 22, 2013 by BlueDeuce

[+NeverSummer]

You may roll your eyes, but those are real problems that I've seen with my own eyes. Bogus logs can and do cause problems for others.

Explain to me what the problem is. The cache is either found or not found, or the cache is there or not there. I don't see what the problem could be by a person logging a bogus log. Really I don't. Find or Did Not Find, you can't blame the last finder if you cant find a cache that they so-called found. Just plain DUMB.

The cache (these days, often a virtual or webcam it seems) is active. The owner might not be. The cache can still be found legitimately, but an owner might not be actively monitoring the listing or their associated email account. Bogus logs are posted--person armchair logs, or has clearly not visited the cache site. Guidelines mention somewhere that armchair logs are not permitted, and virtual logs--not virtual caches--will be deleted. Attention is brought to an active cache with an inactive owner. Cache may be archived or locked due to that fact. All the while, there are users who would like to log legitimate finds on caches that would otherwise still be active.

 

Thereby, the bogus log causes problems for others. You don't have to agree that it is a problem for you, but it can be for others.

[+MartyBartfast]

 

Explain to me what the problem is.

 

Ok here's the scenario:

 

I own a cache.

It has disappeared.

Several people log DNFs.

I think "ah maybe there's a problem with the cache, I better go check it".

Someone logs a bogus find saying "great cache, easy find"

I then think "obviously it's still there so I don't need to do anything about it"

Next cacher thinks it must still be there 'cos it was found really easily yesterday, and wastes their time looking for something which isn't there.

Necessary cache maintenance has been delayed.

 

Maybe you still don't see that's a problem, but many people do.

[+the4dirtydogs]

You may roll your eyes, but those are real problems that I've seen with my own eyes. Bogus logs can and do cause problems for others.

Explain to me what the problem is. The cache is either found or not found, or the cache is there or not there. I don't see what the problem could be by a person logging a bogus log. Really I don't. Find or Did Not Find, you can't blame the last finder if you cant find a cache that they so-called found. Just plain DUMB.

The cache (these days, often a virtual or webcam it seems) is active. The owner might not be. The cache can still be found legitimately, but an owner might not be actively monitoring the listing or their associated email account. Bogus logs are posted--person armchair logs, or has clearly not visited the cache site. Guidelines mention somewhere that armchair logs are not permitted, and virtual logs--not virtual caches--will be deleted. Attention is brought to an active cache with an inactive owner. Cache may be archived or locked due to that fact. All the while, there are users who would like to log legitimate finds on caches that would otherwise still be active.

 

Thereby, the bogus log causes problems for others. You don't have to agree that it is a problem for you, but it can be for others.

I understand the virtuals and webcams because they are old caches and owners might not be around anymore, so archive them because the owners are inactive. I was commenting on RFD post not virtuals or webcams.

[+the4dirtydogs]

I don't understand why people would log caches like this. I find it even funnier how upset some players get about it. What exactly is this person hurting? This is just a game. I wouldn't worry about it unless it was my cache, then again if it was my cache I wouldn't care one bit.

 

So in other words you don't sign every cache you claimed to have found.

I don't know where you got that from.

 

Your post followed by the lack of denial. I have far more respect for people who admit their caching habits.

 

Afterwards we can have an honest discussion about what is right or wrong.

Lack of denial? I want some of what you're smoking. I sign the logs like every other player out there.

[+the4dirtydogs]

 

Explain to me what the problem is.

 

Ok here's the scenario:

 

I own a cache.

It has disappeared.

Several people log DNFs.

I think "ah maybe there's a problem with the cache, I better go check it".

Someone logs a bogus find saying "great cache, easy find"

I then think "obviously it's still there so I don't need to do anything about it"

Next cacher thinks it must still be there 'cos it was found really easily yesterday, and wastes their time looking for something which isn't there.

Necessary cache maintenance has been delayed.

 

Maybe you still don't see that's a problem, but many people do.

That's the chance you take. 50/50 either a find or not. You should have done a check after a couple DNFs and not have waited so long. I check after a couple DNFs if I know it's an easy cache. Wasting time is all this game is about.

[+NeverSummer]

You may roll your eyes, but those are real problems that I've seen with my own eyes. Bogus logs can and do cause problems for others.

Explain to me what the problem is. The cache is either found or not found, or the cache is there or not there. I don't see what the problem could be by a person logging a bogus log. Really I don't. Find or Did Not Find, you can't blame the last finder if you cant find a cache that they so-called found. Just plain DUMB.

The cache (these days, often a virtual or webcam it seems) is active. The owner might not be. The cache can still be found legitimately, but an owner might not be actively monitoring the listing or their associated email account. Bogus logs are posted--person armchair logs, or has clearly not visited the cache site. Guidelines mention somewhere that armchair logs are not permitted, and virtual logs--not virtual caches--will be deleted. Attention is brought to an active cache with an inactive owner. Cache may be archived or locked due to that fact. All the while, there are users who would like to log legitimate finds on caches that would otherwise still be active.

 

Thereby, the bogus log causes problems for others. You don't have to agree that it is a problem for you, but it can be for others.

I understand the virtuals and webcams because they are old caches and owners might not be around anymore, so archive them because the owners are inactive. I was commenting on RFD post not virtuals or webcams.

Well then, this:

 

Explain to me what the problem is.

 

Ok here's the scenario:

 

I own a cache.

It has disappeared.

Several people log DNFs.

I think "ah maybe there's a problem with the cache, I better go check it".

Someone logs a bogus find saying "great cache, easy find"

I then think "obviously it's still there so I don't need to do anything about it"

Next cacher thinks it must still be there 'cos it was found really easily yesterday, and wastes their time looking for something which isn't there.

Necessary cache maintenance has been delayed.

 

Maybe you still don't see that's a problem, but many people do.

[+BlueDeuce]

I don't understand why people would log caches like this. I find it even funnier how upset some players get about it. What exactly is this person hurting? This is just a game. I wouldn't worry about it unless it was my cache, then again if it was my cache I wouldn't care one bit.

 

So in other words you don't sign every cache you claimed to have found.

I don't know where you got that from.

 

Your post followed by the lack of denial. I have far more respect for people who admit their caching habits.

 

Afterwards we can have an honest discussion about what is right or wrong.

Lack of denial? I want some of what you're smoking. I sign the logs like every other player out there.

 

Every other player does not sign the log.

 

Do you claim a find on a cache that you didn't visit and see for yourself?

[+the4dirtydogs]

I don't understand why people would log caches like this. I find it even funnier how upset some players get about it. What exactly is this person hurting? This is just a game. I wouldn't worry about it unless it was my cache, then again if it was my cache I wouldn't care one bit.

 

So in other words you don't sign every cache you claimed to have found.

I don't know where you got that from.

 

Your post followed by the lack of denial. I have far more respect for people who admit their caching habits.

 

Afterwards we can have an honest discussion about what is right or wrong.

Lack of denial? I want some of what you're smoking. I sign the logs like every other player out there.

 

Every other player does not sign the log.

 

Do you claim a find on a cache that you didn't visit and see for yourself?

Nope.

[+BlueDeuce]

I don't understand why people would log caches like this. I find it even funnier how upset some players get about it. What exactly is this person hurting? This is just a game. I wouldn't worry about it unless it was my cache, then again if it was my cache I wouldn't care one bit.

 

So in other words you don't sign every cache you claimed to have found.

I don't know where you got that from.

 

Your post followed by the lack of denial. I have far more respect for people who admit their caching habits.

 

Afterwards we can have an honest discussion about what is right or wrong.

Lack of denial? I want some of what you're smoking. I sign the logs like every other player out there.

 

Every other player does not sign the log.

 

Do you claim a find on a cache that you didn't visit and see for yourself?

Nope.

 

Me neither. Perhaps you could explain to me how a cache is either found or not found, or the cache is there or not there, since you are in support of bogus logging.

[+the4dirtydogs]

I don't understand why people would log caches like this. I find it even funnier how upset some players get about it. What exactly is this person hurting? This is just a game. I wouldn't worry about it unless it was my cache, then again if it was my cache I wouldn't care one bit.

 

So in other words you don't sign every cache you claimed to have found.

I don't know where you got that from.

 

Your post followed by the lack of denial. I have far more respect for people who admit their caching habits.

 

Afterwards we can have an honest discussion about what is right or wrong.

Lack of denial? I want some of what you're smoking. I sign the logs like every other player out there.

 

Every other player does not sign the log.

 

Do you claim a find on a cache that you didn't visit and see for yourself?

Nope.

 

Me neither. Perhaps you could explain to me how a cache is either found or not found, or the cache is there or not there, since you are in support of bogus logging.

I really don't think you need an explaination. Next question?

[+NeverSummer]

Ok, ok...so there are ways to report a cacher in these cases. There are possible consequences to reporting to geocaching.com, including--but not limited to--deletion of the bogus logs, archival of the cache, locking of the cache.

 

Some people don't see it as an issue, others do. The reasons for this vary from person to person.

 

Now, is this something that should be moved to the German forums, or brought to that community's attention? Are those in that community aware that there is possible abuse going on with caches in the USA? Just wondering.

[+MartyBartfast]

 

Explain to me what the problem is.

 

Ok here's the scenario:

 

I own a cache.

It has disappeared.

Several people log DNFs.

I think "ah maybe there's a problem with the cache, I better go check it".

Someone logs a bogus find saying "great cache, easy find"

I then think "obviously it's still there so I don't need to do anything about it"

Next cacher thinks it must still be there 'cos it was found really easily yesterday, and wastes their time looking for something which isn't there.

Necessary cache maintenance has been delayed.

 

Maybe you still don't see that's a problem, but many people do.

That's the chance you take. 50/50 either a find or not. You should have done a check after a couple DNFs and not have waited so long. I check after a couple DNFs if I know it's an easy cache. Wasting time is all this game is about.

 

Really? Just had a quick look at your cache and after 2 DNFs you waited over 3 weeks to temp disable it and it was over a month before you got out to check it. Are you honestly saying that you would still have disabled it and gone out to check it if someone had logged a find after those 2 DNFs?

[+The_Incredibles_]

 

Explain to me what the problem is.

 

Ok here's the scenario:

 

I own a cache.

It has disappeared.

Several people log DNFs.

I think "ah maybe there's a problem with the cache, I better go check it".

Someone logs a bogus find saying "great cache, easy find"

I then think "obviously it's still there so I don't need to do anything about it"

Next cacher thinks it must still be there 'cos it was found really easily yesterday, and wastes their time looking for something which isn't there.

Necessary cache maintenance has been delayed.

 

Maybe you still don't see that's a problem, but many people do.

 

Cmon, even my cat would know to ignore a bogus log like that.

[+BlueDeuce]

 

Explain to me what the problem is.

 

Ok here's the scenario:

 

I own a cache.

It has disappeared.

Several people log DNFs.

I think "ah maybe there's a problem with the cache, I better go check it".

Someone logs a bogus find saying "great cache, easy find"

I then think "obviously it's still there so I don't need to do anything about it"

Next cacher thinks it must still be there 'cos it was found really easily yesterday, and wastes their time looking for something which isn't there.

Necessary cache maintenance has been delayed.

 

Maybe you still don't see that's a problem, but many people do.

 

Cmon, even my cat would know to ignore a bogus log like that.

 

I ignore them by deleting them. Why is that a problem?

Edited February 23, 2013 by BlueDeuce

[+the4dirtydogs]

 

Explain to me what the problem is.

 

Ok here's the scenario:

 

I own a cache.

It has disappeared.

Several people log DNFs.

I think "ah maybe there's a problem with the cache, I better go check it".

Someone logs a bogus find saying "great cache, easy find"

I then think "obviously it's still there so I don't need to do anything about it"

Next cacher thinks it must still be there 'cos it was found really easily yesterday, and wastes their time looking for something which isn't there.

Necessary cache maintenance has been delayed.

 

Maybe you still don't see that's a problem, but many people do.

That's the chance you take. 50/50 either a find or not. You should have done a check after a couple DNFs and not have waited so long. I check after a couple DNFs if I know it's an easy cache. Wasting time is all this game is about.

 

Really? Just had a quick look at your cache and after 2 DNFs you waited over 3 weeks to temp disable it and it was over a month before you got out to check it. Are you honestly saying that you would still have disabled it and gone out to check it if someone had logged a find after those 2 DNFs?

You have to understand that I dont receive the emails for our caches(been changed)the wifey receives the emails. And when I check my caches I see the finds and not the DNFs unless I check every cache I own every day. So when I noticed the DNFs I disabled the cache to let other players know the cache could be missing. I was a little busy that month with life. Yes I would have honestly gone to check the cache because it was too easy to have an DNFs. I was commenting on your example, so I don't see why you had to get personal and bring up one of my caches. Oh and I checked on the cache 10 days or so after I disabled it and archived it. Is that good enough for you MartyFartfast?

Edited February 23, 2013 by the4dirtydogs

[4wheelin_fool]

I don't understand why people would log caches like this. I find it even funnier how upset some players get about it. What exactly is this person hurting? This is just a game. I wouldn't worry about it unless it was my cache, then again if it was my cache I wouldn't care one bit.

 

They are abusing the website. If 100 people did the same thing it would be a chore to determine the real logs from the rest of the litter.

Oh No they're abusing the site. Like I said I just don't worry about what others claim as a find. It just doesn't matter to me. But I do get a good laugh from posts like yours.

 

No, they are not doing any real harm, like the guy who tosses a single soda can into the woods. So what? What is one can going to do? When there is 100 out there, I'm sure that every person thought that individually they did not do anything really wrong either.

 

Let me mention that your posts show blatant abuse of the rolleyes and laughing emoticons, but I'll let it go.

[+the4dirtydogs]

I don't understand why people would log caches like this. I find it even funnier how upset some players get about it. What exactly is this person hurting? This is just a game. I wouldn't worry about it unless it was my cache, then again if it was my cache I wouldn't care one bit.

 

They are abusing the website. If 100 people did the same thing it would be a chore to determine the real logs from the rest of the litter.

Oh No they're abusing the site. Like I said I just don't worry about what others claim as a find. It just doesn't matter to me. But I do get a good laugh from posts like yours.

 

No, they are not doing any real harm, like the guy who tosses a single soda can into the woods. So what? What is one can going to do? When there is 100 out there, I'm sure that every person thought that individually they did not do anything really wrong either.

 

Let me mention that your posts show blatant abuse of the rolleyes and laughing emoticons, but I'll let it go.

Sorry man, I can't take that post seriously.

[+BlueDeuce]

Sorry man, I can't take that post seriously.

 

So why don't you step aside when one cacher wants to address bogus logging. Player.

[+tozainamboku]

No, they are not doing any real harm, like the guy who tosses a single soda can into the woods. So what? What is one can going to do? When there is 100 out there, I'm sure that every person thought that individually they did not do anything really wrong either.

Verily, she should wear the scarlet A on her chest so that the people will know of Mistress Pryne's sin and shall not do likewise.

I see little evidence that not deleting bogus logs encourages anyone to create bogus logs. For the overwhelming number of geocachers, it is the excitement of going out and finding caches that is what this is about. They don't get joy posting online finds for something they never looked for. Only a few people may log a cache that they didn't actually find because they were at the location and they searched till they were certain it was missing. The find marks this cache as "done". Anyone sitting at home logging bogus logs without even looking will certainly get bored of this quickly. A few people have written scripts to automate logging - perhaps they get some satisfaction in creating the software - but once they've run the script and gotten their account banned they are little more than a nuisance.

 

The problem of couch potato logs on virtual caches may be the exception. Because many virtual caches used a verification question as the log replacement, some cache owners did allow "couch potato" finds on their virtual caches. That encouraged others to attempt to log other virtual caches based on answering the question. Other than a email address with .de, there is little a cache owner can do to tell if the answer for their virtual was from someone who visited their cache or whether they found the answer on the internet. Eventually enough people complained to Groundspeak that they clarified their position on couch potato logs.

 

Many people believe that even the widespread practice of couch potato virtual logs did not have any negative impact on people who actually believe that geocaching was about going places and finding things. If you didn't want to participate in this side game, you simply went to the cache location and tried to find the answer to the question there. Cache owners who didn't want to play the side game had the option of deleting the logs or creating a verification method that could only be done by visiting the cache site. Groundspeak's policy of archiving and locking virtual caches because of couch potato logs has prevented people like me from logging virtuals that they actually visited to get the verification answer.

 

I understand that Groundspeak has a different opinion. They believe that certain uses of the online logging system are abuse and violate the TOUs. They also want cache owners to take the responsibility for enforcing this view. But that doesn't mean that cache owners can't have the opinion that these logs are harmless or even that they should be preserved as part of the history of the cache.

[+BlueDeuce]

Post your concerns to contact@geocaching.com. They seem like friendly folk.