Jump to content

Abuse of the system?


ArtieD

Recommended Posts

We have a cacher in our area that has been logging finds all over the place, often logging caches literally all over the state in the same day, seemingly in an attempt to finish the county challenge. He got so bad that it was a topic on a local geocaching Facebook page. Someone sent him an email about it, and the guy said that he couldn't sign the log all of the time because he'd both had a stroke and heart attack and was often weak. Problem is, he'd also logged physically demanding caches (no signature), all the while passing up easy caches along the way.

 

After pressure from others who never saw a physical log for many of his finds, he deleted a lot of his found logs. Cache owners did as well, and by the end, over 100 logs were deleted. Since then, he's been doing it over and over (even with my caches) and when called out on it, he promptly deletes the fake logs. At one point, on his own profile he made a statement to the effect that because of what he's doing, he's gotten cachers to check their caches. I guess he thinks it's some kind of game or that it's kosher to do so he can complete challenges.

 

What I want to know is, is it against the TOU to repeatedly and intentionally post false logs on caches? In the end, it doesn't bother me, but for cache owners it's annoying to have to actually check their caches to make sure this guy actually found their cache.

Link to comment

This is a game, if you don’t like the way he plays it then don’t play with him, it’s all he is doing is ruining your game. My advice is to forget about him obviously you are not going to change him or the way he plays, so move on and Cache on!!

 

I agree. As far as it goes, he can fake log the entire ET and Route 66 power trails for all I care. I am posting this from the perspective of the cache owners who have to deal with this.

Edited by Arthur & Trillian
Link to comment

Interesting question.....he seems to be perfectly willing to delete his bogus logs when called out in it, so I guess he's working the percentages....i.e., if he logs 100 bogus finds, and only 25 conscientious CO's check the sigs and delete the bogus logs, he still nets 75 finds that nobody ever questions.

 

As far as his excuse about the heart attack and stroke, that sounds like pure B.S. to me....you can get in a car, drive all over the state, walk to the cache (some with fairly high Terrain ratings), but you're just too weak to write your name? Come on.....😠

Link to comment

What I want to know is, is it against the TOU to repeatedly and intentionally post false logs on caches?

I would say "Yes", if the facts you stated are accurate.

 

For me, the key word would be 'false'. Something that has been hammered out numerous times in this forum is the issue of what constitutes a false log. If I hike 80 gazillion miles to a cache, and I climb the 75' tall tree to get to it, and discover it is rusted shut, would my "Found It" log describing exactly what I did, be considered false? What if I made it to the cache and could not sign it because of a physical disability? If I mention in my log exactly what I did, detailing the reason I could not sign the log, have I intentionally posted a false log?

 

Personally, I won't log anything unless my signature is in the logbook. But that rather strict interpretation of the mores of this hobby are rules I only apply to myself, not others. If someone were to log either of the described adventures on one of my hides, I would never consider deleting them.

 

But what of those guys who never leave the comfort of their lazy boys? I think the general consensus would be that such logs are intentionally false, and are subject to deletion. At that point, continuing to post such logs could easily be seen as harassment.

Link to comment

As far as his excuse about the heart attack and stroke, that sounds like pure B.S. to me....you can get in a car, drive all over the state, walk to the cache (some with fairly high Terrain ratings), but you're just too weak to write your name? Come on.....😠

It very well could be. I don't know the guy, so I can't speak to his particular disability, or if he even has a disability. Though I will mention that the effects of stroke are not universal. It is quite possible to suffer a stroke which impairs the fine motor skills necessary for writing in small logs, without impairing those skills needed for other activities such as driving or hiking.

Link to comment

This is a game, if you don’t like the way he plays it then don’t play with him, it’s all he is doing is ruining your game. My advice is to forget about him obviously you are not going to change him or the way he plays, so move on and Cache on!!

 

If he's just a cacher in my area who everyone knows about, then yes, I agree, just ignore him and move on. However, if I'm the cache owner in question, I don't have the option not to play with him, because he's logging MY caches. I don't want false logs on my caches, and as a cache owner I'm perfectly within my rights to delete them.

 

But it does affect others as well....I read recent logs when hunting a cache, and if the cache has been DNF'd several times in a row previous to my visit, I assume there's a good chance it's missing....therefore I'll either choose not to try that one or at least not waste a lot of time on it. But if there are a bunch of recent DNF's and then this guy's bogus find, I would assume it's been found recently and waste a bunch of time looking for a cache that's not there

 

Likewise, as a cache owner, if I'm paying attention to my caches, a string of two or three DNF's should prompt me to go out and check on my cache to make sure it's still there. Throw in this guy's illegitimate log and I'll think, oh, OK, I guess it's still there after all, and not go check on my cache, thereby leaving it MIA for a bit longer, which in turn messes up more cachers' enjoyment of that cache. It's all lazy caching and it all affects others' experience with the game, so you can't say his actions don't affect anyone else.

Link to comment

Well, that's the thing. he doesn't pick caches in one area and goes with it...they are often spread out. When called out initially, he had logged the state Delorme challenge, but after the first purge, his Delorme oages were severely reduced. The image below documents what I am talking about. I am watching one of the caches, so that's how I was made aware of this latest instance. I have literally traveled all over the state (completed the county challenge) and while I guess it's technically possible to do, it's extremely unlikely, given from where the person is based, his alleged condition and the fact the email for the cache I got the notify for was received in the midday.

 

caches.jpg

Link to comment

I suspect, based on the fact that he deleted his own logs in several circumstances, that he is pulling some shenanigans. If I were the type who found it acceptable, in certain circumstances, to log a find without signing the logbook, I would not delete my own finds. If someone else deleted my finds, I would argue my case first, with the cache owner, then, failing that, with Groundspeak, to get my finds restored. Deleting his own finds smells too much like guilt.

 

That being said, the date of all these finds should not be used as evidence, other than circumstantial. When I am caching away from home, I usually wait to post my logs till I get home. For the most part, I select the date which matches when I actually found each cache, but sometimes I mess up. My profile will reflect a bunch of finds which were legitimate, which show the wrong date on them.

Link to comment

 

What I want to know is, is it against the TOU to repeatedly and intentionally post false logs on caches? In the end, it doesn't bother me, but for cache owners it's annoying to have to actually check their caches to make sure this guy actually found their cache.

 

There was the case of the retired guy in a motorhome, whom I believe actually was traveling all of the country, but just logging caches he drove past. Groundspeak did in fact wipe out his finds. This was quite a while ago, 2007 or 2008. He comes up so rarely these days, I've forgotten the username.

Link to comment

There was the case of the retired guy in a motorhome, whom I believe actually was traveling all of the country, but just logging caches he drove past.

 

That's not too far off of what is routinely done on these so-called 'mega-trails' right now.

 

(If what I read in these forums is to be believed.)

Link to comment

There was the case of the retired guy in a motorhome, whom I believe actually was traveling all of the country, but just logging caches he drove past.

 

That's not too far off of what is routinely done on these so-called 'mega-trails' right now.

 

(If what I read in these forums is to be believed.)

Very true. If two car loads of cachers do a 1000 cache power trail, with one car nabbing the odds and the other car nabbing the evens, or, if each car starts at different ends, meeting in the middle, (both methods have been described by those who have done them), there will be roughly 500 caches logged by a group that simply went past them. These behaviors have been staunchly defended by several numbers oriented cachers. I'm kinda surprised that Groundspeak took action against the motor home dude, when they took no action against those power trail folks who did the same thing for half the caches.

Link to comment

I'm kinda surprised that Groundspeak took action against the motor home dude, when they took no action against those power trail folks who did the same thing for half the caches.

I'm kinda surprised that Groundspeak took action against the motorhome dude as well. Perhaps two differences. First the owners of the caches motorhome dude logged may have complained. It has been pointed out that several power trail owners don't have a problem with certain logging practices that others may find unacceptable. Second, when a team splits up, they only log caches that someone from the team found. Therefore the nature of the bogosity of these logs is substantially different. While the individual may not have found the cache (depending on your definition of found), the cache was in fact found. It was likely signed with a team name. While I personally think it is silly to post a found log here, I'm not likely to consider it abuse. On the other hand Mr. motorhome, and the cacher accused by the OP in this thread, seem to be creating found logs for caches that nobody found. A completely different sort of bogosity, one that is not as benign as the powertrail leapfrogging type.

Link to comment

There was the case of the retired guy in a motorhome, whom I believe actually was traveling all of the country, but just logging caches he drove past.

 

That's not too far off of what is routinely done on these so-called 'mega-trails' right now.

 

(If what I read in these forums is to be believed.)

Very true. If two car loads of cachers do a 1000 cache power trail, with one car nabbing the odds and the other car nabbing the evens, or, if each car starts at different ends, meeting in the middle, (both methods have been described by those who have done them), there will be roughly 500 caches logged by a group that simply went past them. These behaviors have been staunchly defended by several numbers oriented cachers. I'm kinda surprised that Groundspeak took action against the motor home dude, when they took no action against those power trail folks who did the same thing for half the caches.

 

If someone else signs your name in the logs, it is a little different. There is little anyone can do to prove you were not there, as a signed log trumps all else. :D

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment

There was the case of the retired guy in a motorhome, whom I believe actually was traveling all of the country, but just logging caches he drove past.

 

That's not too far off of what is routinely done on these so-called 'mega-trails' right now.

 

(If what I read in these forums is to be believed.)

Very true. If two car loads of cachers do a 1000 cache power trail, with one car nabbing the odds and the other car nabbing the evens, or, if each car starts at different ends, meeting in the middle, (both methods have been described by those who have done them), there will be roughly 500 caches logged by a group that simply went past them. These behaviors have been staunchly defended by several numbers oriented cachers. I'm kinda surprised that Groundspeak took action against the motor home dude, when they took no action against those power trail folks who did the same thing for half the caches.

 

If someone else signs your name in the logs, it is a little different. There is little anyone can do to prove you were not there, as a signed log trumps all else. :D

What if you logged into a mostly public geocaching forum and declared, of your own free will, that you were several thousand miles away from the cache when your moniker was added to the logbook? :lol::ph34r::P

Link to comment

I'm kinda surprised that Groundspeak took action against the motor home dude, when they took no action against those power trail folks who did the same thing for half the caches.

I'm kinda surprised that Groundspeak took action against the motorhome dude as well. Perhaps two differences. First the owners of the caches motorhome dude logged may have complained. It has been pointed out that several power trail owners don't have a problem with certain logging practices that others may find unacceptable. Second, when a team splits up, they only log caches that someone from the team found. Therefore the nature of the bogosity of these logs is substantially different. While the individual may not have found the cache (depending on your definition of found), the cache was in fact found. It was likely signed with a team name. While I personally think it is silly to post a found log here, I'm not likely to consider it abuse. On the other hand Mr. motorhome, and the cacher accused by the OP in this thread, seem to be creating found logs for caches that nobody found. A completely different sort of bogosity, one that is not as benign as the powertrail leapfrogging type.

Based on what is well-known to be the common practice for power trails like the ET, I'd be surprised to find out that the owner has audited every single cache for signatures against online logs. I think that is the real key to the difference. When owners actually do check and get involved in maintaining their cache listing and logs, that's when the rubber hits the road.

Edited by NeverSummer
Link to comment

There was the case of the retired guy in a motorhome, whom I believe actually was traveling all of the country, but just logging caches he drove past.

 

That's not too far off of what is routinely done on these so-called 'mega-trails' right now.

 

(If what I read in these forums is to be believed.)

It's like power trails for seniors.... :rolleyes:

Link to comment

If someone else signs your name in the logs, it is a little different. There is little anyone can do to prove you were not there, as a signed log trumps all else. :D

 

Based on what is well-known to be the common practice for power trails like the ET, I'd be surprised to find out that the owner has audited every single cache for signatures against online logs. I think that is the real key to the difference. When owners actually do check and get involved in maintaining their cache listing and logs, that's when the rubber hits the road.

This is why I feel the idea that sign the log = found the cache is silly.

There are cases where some gets someone else to write their name in the log when they didn't actually "find" the cache and even when they hadn't even gone to the cache site. And there are cases where someone actually found the cache but was unable to sign because the log book was wet or their pen dried up or whatever.

 

I realize their are a a few people who will not log a find unless they signed. And they can chose this definition. Where I generally use "P" word regards those people who look no farther than the signature to decide whether a find is bogus or not. The OP has described a situation where evidence is pretty clear. The logger uses an excuse of it being difficult to write in the log, yet they manage to log online caches that seem unlikely someone with the claimed conditions would find. If some has a hokey excuse for not signing the log on nearly all the caches they claim to have found, then by all means, delete the questionable finds. If someone only occasionally forgets a pen or forgets to sign and can provide as reasonable description of where they found the cache then why not let the find stand?

 

Personally, I find it even sillier to worry about someone "cheating" on power trail caches that you despise. And even if you are planning to do a power trail "your way" logging only the caches you find and not leaving any throw downs, is it really going the make a difference that some caches might have additional find logs by the part of the team that leapfrogged these caches?

 

While I done condone the leapfrogging of PT caches or the remote help on a cache in the Cayman Islands, I really don't feel like these "broad" interpretations of the find log have much effect on anyone else. (Maybe the word you would use is "loose" -- no, take that back, the word you really want to use is probably "liberal").

Link to comment

We had something similar pop up in our area. Someone logging hundreds of finds in a day all with just the word found. I caught onto it quickly and texted a few local hiders and we also talked about it on facebook and most deleted there logs. We have about 15 kayak to caches on a lake and those were the logs that started popping up first for me. I was thinking who would go find all of these without saying something like the log was wet or this one was missing or something at all. Then later on some of our other caches. Then one popped up on this 5 difficulty cache puzzle that I have been working on and looked for a few times and also was aware had been missing. Just found? Yea they were bogus. And I also agree the part that hurts is the found it on a cache that has a few DNF's both for the CO and the ones going to look for it. I even find it weird sometimes when there is a few dnf's on a cache after I DNF it and then someone posts a find (a cacher that I wouldn't think of as someone who would cheat) and then after that it ends up missing. But that is something different.

Link to comment

There was the case of the retired guy in a motorhome, whom I believe actually was traveling all of the country, but just logging caches he drove past.

 

That's not too far off of what is routinely done on these so-called 'mega-trails' right now.

 

(If what I read in these forums is to be believed.)

It's like power trails for seniors.... :rolleyes:

 

There are a lot of retired people who could be considered full-time Geocachers out there. I'm sure they won't be offended by that though. :lol:

 

I might need some help, but the retired guy who has often been cited as an example of Groundspeak wiping out the finds of a bogus logger? Username was Optimus something. No it wasn't Optimus Prime, but it was Optimus something. If anyone has a better memory than me, I'm sure we'll find a zero find account if we look at the profile.

Link to comment

This is obviously bogus logging. Anyone can sit at a computer and "find" them.

 

I don't have any problem logging a legitimate find even if I can't sign the log. If a log is full, or so wet/degraded I can't sign it, or (as in on case nearby) the container is degraded such that it can't be opened, that is not my fault.

 

If I made the effort and actually found it, then I see no reason not to claim credit for the find.

 

If the CO ignores log entries saying the cache needs maintenance, that's not my problem.

 

I don't think most COs really care about the log anyway (at least in northern NY). I have replaced a few full or wet logs and posted a note that I have the original and if the CO wants it to contact me. No CO has ever contacted me. After a while I throw the old junk out.

Link to comment

If someone else signs your name in the logs, it is a little different. There is little anyone can do to prove you were not there, as a signed log trumps all else. :D

What if you logged into a mostly public geocaching forum and declared, of your own free will, that you were several thousand miles away from the cache when your moniker was added to the logbook? :lol::ph34r::P

 

Nobody knows for certain if they were there or not. They could be lying. In the case of Team Weiss and the Caymans, its entirely possible that he was planning a trip to the area and decided as a joke to start a thread pretending that he knew someone there. Perhaps he already knew the predictable answer that the forum would give him about team logging, but then log it anyway, and get "busted". After everything settles down, he could upload pictures of himself being there, as well as the plane tickets and the surrounding area. Maybe he would want to prove that its not anyones concern about what he does. With the physical evidence of his name in the log, there is little to prove that he didn't visit on a business trip. If you are a strict disciple of Occam's razor and always assume the simplest explanation, you could get set up easily for that kind of malarkey. :D

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment

I just wanted to mention that this kind of lying is no more "Abuse of the system" than verbally lying is abuse of the language.

 

The other responses have covered the ground, but personally I don't hesitate to delete logs that seem so unlikely. If I'm not sure, I check the physical log first, but that's easy for me because I don't have many caches, and none of them are far flung. I'd have no problem if a CO wanted to delete an unlikely kayak cache find without going out to check the log.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...