stupidity as it's best

[+The_Incredibles_]

I have been invited via Facebook to armchair log a TB in another country! How handy!

 

i have a tb that stores all my other tbs that only get discovered,so new goal i want this tb to be the most discovered tb ever so feel free to share the number with one and all <TB code removed> and Groundspeak changed there policy on this so dont complain it can be done.just saying

[+Roman!]

The stupid part is he's not advertising in Germany.

[+The_Incredibles_]

The stupid part is he's not advertising in Germany.

 

It's a woman. Who knows, it looks like she might be posting on all the geocaching Facebook groups.

[4wheelin_fool]

I had a TB that someone recently discovered in Sweden "from an old list". However it disappeared in 2007 and never left the state. It seems that people are hacking the TB #s for points? I deleted it, but it seems to be part of a new obsessive insanity game.

[+Roman!]

I had a TB that someone recently discovered in Sweden "from an old list". However it disappeared in 2007 and never left the state. It seems that people are hacking the TB #s for points? I deleted it, but it seems to be part of a new obsessive insanity game.

 

Probably won't be long till someone creates a script and logs every trackable in the world.

[+Team Microdot]

I wonder if the TB number was shared with Groundspeak if they would respond in any way?

[+KRON family]

Dear Terrifrog,

because you deleted my WN at your TB6CK1Y, I'll write it here.

The most discovered travelbug is really not about "i see the photo on the net" or "somebody text me code". If you want to have most discovered travelbug, you should have attending on worldwide events, megaevents and gigaevents. This is not an honest way.

[Mr.Yuck]

I wonder if the TB number was shared with Groundspeak if they would respond in any way?

 

Nope. They gave up policing this kind of stuff in the past year or so. The floodgates have been opened.

 

You weren't around when the floodgates were opened for power trails to be allowed, were you Mrs. I? Well, this is how many of us felt back then, we couldn't believe it. This one just didn't get much publicity.

 

In all seriousness though, I guess Groundspeak doesn't advertise it, but virtual logging of TB's is allowed if the owner allows it. A local Geocaching organization, for example, is free to put their tracking number up on Facebook and/or all over the internet, and have anyone anywhere in the world discover it. And from what I've seen, they'd have thousands of people take them up on it.

[+MartyBartfast]

I wonder if the TB number was shared with Groundspeak if they would respond in any way?

 

Nope. They gave up policing this kind of stuff in the past year or so. The floodgates have been opened.

 

I wonder if, as Roman! suggested, someone comes up with a script to automate large scale virtual logging of TBs, then someone will come up with a script to automate scrubbing virtual logs from your TBs, if that then descends into a to-and-fro of mass logging & mass deleting, then it could put a lot of strain on the GS servers, at which point they might become more interested.

[+tallglenn]

I kinda wish there were an "Archive" button for lost trackables. I have one I renamed "DO NOT LOG UNLESS YOU SEE WITH YOUR OWN EYES". It still gets a hit now & then from a list distributed in Portugal. I've deleted tons of logs with no response - apparently the fake loggers couldn't have cared less.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I kinda wish there were an "Archive" button for lost trackables. I have one I renamed "DO NOT LOG UNLESS YOU SEE WITH YOUR OWN EYES". It still gets a hit now & then from a list distributed in Portugal. I've deleted tons of logs with no response - apparently the fake loggers couldn't have cared less.

 

It;s like email spam. Even if thousands of people delete it, if a few respond that makes it worth the effort.

[+Team Microdot]

It;s like email spam. Even if thousands of people delete it, if a few respond that makes it worth the effort.

 

Only in the land of make-believe, where it's worth the effort to pretend you've done something you haven't - or have other people pretend they've done something with something you own that they've never actually even been in the same room with

[team tisri]

It;s like email spam. Even if thousands of people delete it, if a few respond that makes it worth the effort.

 

Only in the land of make-believe, where it's worth the effort to pretend you've done something you haven't - or have other people pretend they've done something with something you own that they've never actually even been in the same room with

 

Sadly this kind of thing is an inevitable byproduct of having lists that could be interpreted as leader boards. Sooner or later people are going to cheat to get a higher "score". With all the assorted geocoin icons out there now it's not surprising that sooner or later people are going to log things they never saw to get the cool icon. When there's usually no way to know whether they really did see it or not it only makes it more likely that people will have a go.

 

The way it seems the overwhelming majority of geocoins spend their lives in the owner's collection and are never released into the wild certainly doesn't help.

[+Team Microdot]

The way it seems the overwhelming majority of geocoins spend their lives in the owner's collection and are never released into the wild certainly doesn't help.

 

And no doubt the fantasy loggers would point to that fact as some equally baseless justification for their fantasy logs

[team tisri]

The way it seems the overwhelming majority of geocoins spend their lives in the owner's collection and are never released into the wild certainly doesn't help.

 

And no doubt the fantasy loggers would point to that fact as some equally baseless justification for their fantasy logs

 

I don't suppose armchair loggers feel any need to justify what they are doing, beyond the fact they're playing the game their own way. Especially when any cache or trackable owners that really object can delete logs.

[+wmpastor]

I have been invited via Facebook to armchair log a TB in another country! How handy!

 

i have a tb that stores all my other tbs that only get discovered,so new goal i want this tb to be the most discovered tb ever so feel free to share the number with one and all <TB code removed> and Groundspeak changed there policy on this so dont complain it can be done.just saying

You corrected Roman! on his spelling in your other thread.

 

Now i'm waiting for him to correct your spelling in your thread title.

[cezanne]

or have other people pretend they've done something with something you own that they've never actually even been in the same room with

 

I think there is a difference between discovering a trackable with the explicit permission of its owner and just using some arbitrary number.

 

People who have seen pictures of a trackable distributed by its owner have more reason to write a discover log than people at events which often

do not look at all the trackables being available there.

 

The term "Discover" is not very precise. I do not see any reason why one should not be able to discover a GC via facebook. Of course the original

idea of trackables is a different one, but GCs are a story of their own anyway. If the real focus were on travelling, GCs never should have been introduced

(at least not so many special ones instead of one type).

 

If someone pays a whole lot of money (sometimes 20 Euro and more) this should include the right to let others write discover logs for his/her property

(personally, I hardly ever write a discover log, but that's just me). It's not surprising at all that the majority of GCs stays in the possession of their owners -

many are just too are just to valuable are rare for sending them around. In contrast to travel bugs and some standard kind of GCs most GCs quickly run out of supply

and one cannot buy additional ones if some get lost.

[+cerberus1]

Response made sense until the merge.

- Placed ten down from the post I replied to...

Edited September 23, 2014 by cerberus1

[+Team Microdot]

The way it seems the overwhelming majority of geocoins spend their lives in the owner's collection and are never released into the wild certainly doesn't help.

 

And no doubt the fantasy loggers would point to that fact as some equally baseless justification for their fantasy logs

 

I don't suppose armchair loggers feel any need to justify what they are doing, beyond the fact they're playing the game their own way. Especially when any cache or trackable owners that really object can delete logs.

 

I expect that they do though - if only to themselves

[Keystone]

I am moving this thread from the Geocaching Topics forum to the Travel Bug forum.

[+Team Microdot]

or have other people pretend they've done something with something you own that they've never actually even been in the same room with

 

I think there is a difference between discovering a trackable with the explicit permission of its owner and just using some arbitrary number.

 

Yes - the difference is typically the presence or absence of owner permission.

 

People who have seen pictures of a trackable distributed by its owner have more reason to write a discover log than people at events which often

do not look at all the trackables being available there.

 

Do they really? I think not. If I've had a trackable in my hand and noted down its number I'll class that as a discovery - because that's an accurate record of the facts.

 

The term "Discover" is not very precise. I do not see any reason why one should not be able to discover a GC via facebook.

 

Quite right - and we must fight the oppressors for their right to discover a GC via facebook

[+Eartha]

Merged duplicate threads.

 

Having been a volunteer here for over ten years, I can say this. The discover function was put in place to stop the confusion that was happening at events when people wanted to log a friend's trackable. It used to be that to log a trackable, you had to grab, or retrieve, it. Then the owner had to grab it back from you. If you wanted to log one you saw in a cache, you had to retrieve it, then log it back in to to cache. This created a lot of chaos when lots of people at events wanted to log the same trackable. So Discover and Visited were introduced. Suddenly, couch potato loggers crawled out of the woodwork. It is not intended for Facebook logging, or passing around numbers on a list. It's also too hard to police people who feel entitled to abuse the system in their own ways. If you didn't actually see it n person, how could you possibly want to claim a find on it? But some people feel the need to go for false numbers. And it's unbelievably so rampant that there isn't much Groundspeak can do to stem the tide. Go with your conscience. If it feels like cheating, it probably is. I am not impressed or fooled with false discoveries. The really traveled travel bugs will know who they are. The rest have their comfy couches, and we know how to tell them apart. I just shake my head at the FB and list loggers.

[team tisri]

Merged duplicate threads.

 

Having been a volunteer here for over ten years, I can say this. The discover function was put in place to stop the confusion that was happening at events when people wanted to log a friend's trackable. It used to be that to log a trackable, you had to grab, or retrieve, it. Then the owner had to grab it back from you. If you wanted to log one you saw in a cache, you had to retrieve it, then log it back in to to cache. This created a lot of chaos when lots of people at events wanted to log the same trackable. So Discover and Visited were introduced. Suddenly, couch potato loggers crawled out of the woodwork. It is not intended for Facebook logging, or passing around numbers on a list. It's also too hard to police people who feel entitled to abuse the system in their own ways. If you didn't actually see it n person, how could you possibly want to claim a find on it? But some people feel the need to go for false numbers. And it's unbelievably so rampant that there isn't much Groundspeak can do to stem the tide. Go with your conscience. If it feels like cheating, it probably is. I am not impressed or fooled with false discoveries. The really traveled travel bugs will know who they are. The rest have their comfy couches, and we know how to tell them apart. I just shake my head at the FB and list loggers.

 

It's certainly an interesting continuum between logging things you actually found and armchair logging.

 

I remember back in the days when the explosion of icons was new, and it was common to see people picking over piles of coins at events writing down all the numbers to log them. Then that evolved into people with large collections producing lists of tracking codes to hand out so people could admire the coins but didn't have to write down all the numbers themselves. The obvious evolution was that some people would just look in the bag to see all the pretty coins and take the list while others would just take the list. It's a small step from taking the list without looking at the coins, to taking someone else's list without even attending the event.

 

"Go with your conscience" works well, because as soon as things are branded "cheating" it becomes necessary to define where the line between "cheating" and "not cheating" actually lies.

[+Eartha]

The line is really rather simple. Did you see the trackable in person, or not? There's your answer. A simple yes, or no?

[+Team Microdot]

The line is really rather simple. Did you see the trackable in person, or not? There's your answer. A simple yes, or no?

 

+1

[+Car54]

I kinda wish there were an "Archive" button for lost trackables. I have one I renamed "DO NOT LOG UNLESS YOU SEE WITH YOUR OWN EYES". It still gets a hit now & then from a list distributed in Portugal. I've deleted tons of logs with no response - apparently the fake loggers couldn't have cared less.

 

I've even changed the description on some of ours to "STOLEN". Doesn't matter - every so often, we get fake logs, not only on those, but others that have never left our possession. I just delete all of the logs. We also no longer take our trackables to local events nor do we release any. For me, trackables have become just a personal collection and I add to it very seldom these days.

 

Mrs. Car54

 

(edited to clarify that we no longer take our coins to events, not that we never did)

Edited September 23, 2014 by Car54

[4wheelin_fool]

I suppose this is one reason why Groundspeak did not substitute codewords for logbooks. Due to all of the people sharing TB#s without looking at them, the next step would be for the same thing to occur with caches. For some reason having the code seems to make it legit.

[cezanne]

People who have seen pictures of a trackable distributed by its owner have more reason to write a discover log than people at events which often

do not look at all the trackables being available there.

 

Do they really? I think not. If I've had a trackable in my hand and noted down its number I'll class that as a discovery - because that's an accurate record of the facts.

 

Maybe my English is too bad to formulate what I meant and moreover I wrote which instead of who when thinking about something else at the same time. I did not mean to say that everyone

does not look at events at all discovered logs, just that many just get lists of numbers and

do not take the time to look at all these trackables (sometimes there are several hundreds of them at events).

 

Someone who looked at a picture of a trackable comes closer to my idea of having discovered the trackable than someone who just got a number. Whether the trackable and the discoverer have been

in the same room does not play an essential role for me. By looking at a photo, the discoverer at least knows how the trackable looks like, but typing in a number even this is not the case.

 

 

Cezanne

[cezanne]

Having been a volunteer here for over ten years, I can say this. The discover function was put in place to stop the confusion that was happening at events when people wanted to log a friend's trackable.

 

I'm aware of that, but still think that "discover" was not the best name for this.

 

I can very well discover a cheap offer for a flight to city X on the internet. Of course, the flight itself is something real.

Somehow this is the same unfortunate choice of a term than "virtual cache" which should rather have been something like "containerless cache" (think of virtual reality means).

 

I am not impressed or fooled with false discoveries.

 

It's not as easy for me. Suppose someone gets a nice coin as birthday present and feels proud of the GC and wishes to share the GC with some good friends (who live abroad).

If these people are sent photos of the GC and the code and decide to write discover logs where they congratulate the GC owner to their birthday, I do not regard this

is a false discovery and as more sincere than discovering 200 trackables at an event even if one writes down all numbers manually because after some time one does not have the capacity to even

look closer at the trackables and at home one forgot how most of them looked like.

 

If the log type were called "got hold of", then I would agree that it is required to have held a trackable in one's hands, but I do not think that this is a requirement for discovering something.

 

The really traveled travel bugs will know who they are. The rest have their comfy couches, and we know how to tell them apart.

 

For me there is a big difference between trackables that are meant to travel and those that are never meant to travel (which is meanwhile the case for more than 50% of the GCs).

Of course the original idea was to let them travel, but as I said before, then the idea to come up with these many expensive and precious GCs was a wrong thing to do and one

should have sticked with TBs and 1-2 basic types of GCs.

 

 

Cezanne

[+NeverSummer]

I monitor an account for a Land Manager. We have TBs attached to that account, and one was recently in an event in Canada. Someone posted on a log on the event page some TBs and some mistakes to the tracking numbers he provided everyone to "discover" at the event. He listed the numbers openly in his log. Others even mentioned in their logs on the TB page that they used the sheet to discover the trackables, not a physical TB in hand.

 

I asked that the logger delete their posting with numbers in it, and provided the guideline. I was replied to with snark about how the account I contacted him with "only had 1 find". The log was deleted, but not without some complaints from the logger.

 

I thought that armchair/virtual logging from a list or otherwise was not allowed, and grounds to have a trackable locked? Well...the lengths some go to when they want to up their numbers...

[+J Grouchy]

Was the title of this thread intentionally misspelled?

[+Team Microdot]

By looking at a photo, the discoverer at least knows how the trackable looks like, but typing in a number even this is not the case.

 

So if I took one of the existing lists of trackable numbers currently in circulation and ADDED appropriate photographic examples of each that I'd managed to find on Google Images - you would be completely happy to use this to log trackables that you had never seen or touched?

 

How about logging finds on caches you'd never visited - so long as you could find examples which included logs with spoiler photographs so that you could see how the cache looks like? Presumably that would be acceptable also?

[cezanne]

By looking at a photo, the discoverer at least knows how the trackable looks like, but typing in a number even this is not the case.

 

So if I took one of the existing lists of trackable numbers currently in circulation and ADDED appropriate photographic examples of each that I'd managed to find on Google Images - you would be completely happy to use this to log trackables that you had never seen or touched?

 

What I had in mind was neither had lists of trackable numbers in circulation nor to photos someone finds on the internet.

My point was that if the owner of the trackable sends along photos and the tracking number and invites people to discover a trackable this comes closer to my idea of discover than what happens at most events when the trackables that are logged are present.

 

Personally, I log discover logs only in very special cases (can be counted with the fingers of one hand) and in all those cases the trackable is not travelling at all. I do not log car TBs etc

 

I'm proud however of this discover log

http://www.geocaching.com/track/details.aspx?guid=3ea9c5d2-eba6-4b4b-bc97-2c3ec51204eb

It's for a GC for which one gets the tracking code only if one can prove to have walked the entire 180km of a long distance multi cache. Those who made use of vehicles, do not get this offer.

The associated cache has been so special for me and I felt very much honored to be allowed to write a discover log for it.

 

 

How about logging finds on caches you'd never visited - so long as you could find examples which included logs with spoiler photographs so that you could see how the cache looks like? Presumably that would be acceptable also?

 

No, it would not for me for various reasons. The log type for caches is called "found it" and the guidelines ask for a signature in the log book.

I can discover things without having them in my hands. There is neither a clear meaning associated with "discovered" nor are there rules for discover logs.

It would feel wrong to me to grab a trackable I had not have in my hands due to the meaning of "grab", but discover means something else to me.

 

Here is a link to a very old posting by Jeremy http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=131456

 

As personal GCs never travel from cache to cache (I do not mean tracking mileage for cachers) and thus cannot be moved at all, I'd say that discover logs are the natural way to go for logging personal GCs and that it's the owner's preference and intent that plays the key role and not whether I've touched a GC. I might have touched the personal GC of someone who does not want discover logs and then I would not write one. I might

get invited to log a GC via the internet and in some special cases I might accept the invitation and might write the log right away (I might still get to touch the trackable some time later).

 

I think that there is a huge difference between trackables that are sent from cache to cache and trackables that never leave the inventory of their owners.

 

I recently received a discovered log for a trackable that went missing many years ago by a cacher who has not even been active back then. I of course deleted this log.

 

 

Cezanne

Edited September 23, 2014 by cezanne

[+Twentse Mug]

A travel bug is not a geocache.

[+cerberus1]

A travel bug is not a geocache.

Yes, you've repeated that ad nauseum.

I don't believe there's anyone here who thinks a trackable is a geocache...

[+Twentse Mug]

A travel bug is not a geocache.

Yes, you've repeated that ad nauseum.

I don't believe there's anyone here who thinks a trackable is a geocache...

 

Actually, it is just what this thread is about.

[+Team Microdot]

A travel bug is not a geocache.

Yes, you've repeated that ad nauseum.

I don't believe there's anyone here who thinks a trackable is a geocache...

 

Actually, it is just what this thread is about.

 

Well... with such a detailed and well presented explanation - I fail to see how anyone could fail to be blown away by this remarkable insight

[+JL_HSTRE]

A cache is two things: 1) a location 2) a container - or information/photo to be gathered in leu of a container. Armchair cache logs are bogus because the logger has not gotten both things.

 

A trackable is one thing: an item. The code is just a logging mechanism, like the logbook of a physical cache. Trackables are not normally tied to a location. If you never left your house you could never really find a cache, but you could still find trackables that were brought to you.

 

I am adamantly opposed to logging trackables seen only from a list; the item is not seen ergo the log is bonus. If you look through a collection then recieve a list to log from that is honest because you have seen the items, even if you didn't personally record the tracking ID. This is like caching with a friend and your friend finds the container and is the one to sign the physical log, but you were there with him/her when this occured.

 

I don't usually log proxy items because they tend to be poor quality images; I haven't really seen the item.

 

I'm still unsure how I feel about the gray area of logging a TB if I've seen a good photo. I think a photo of a TB and a photo of a cache are not the same; in both cases you have seen the item but the photo of the cache doesn't bring you to the location (no journey).

[cezanne]

 

I don't usually log proxy items because they tend to be poor quality images; I haven't really seen the item.

 

 

Interesting. In most cases I log a trackable to please its owner and not to see specific items and to record this.

I also move along proxy items - these items need help even more than those trackables that are more attractive to those who just want to get to see a new GC.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Another arm-chair logger on the loose!

Discovering some Trackables from images I took or found.

Some of them were taken long ago.

I hope I have read all codes correctly, some of the numbers were a bit vague.

 

Thanks for sharing.

 

This cacher has 'discovered' several thousand trackables in the last few months. Two of mine he 'discovered' Agent Rusty Bear and Florida have been missing since 2009. The cacher joined geocaching in 2011.

Sounds like arm chair discovering to me. I doubt he was anywhere near either of those two TBs.

[+Bear and Ragged]

Another arm-chair logger on the loose!

Discovering some Trackables from images I took or found.

Some of them were taken long ago.

I hope I have read all codes correctly, some of the numbers were a bit vague.

 

Thanks for sharing.

 

This cacher has 'discovered' several thousand trackables in the last few months. Two of mine he 'discovered' Agent Rusty Bear and Florida have been missing since 2009. The cacher joined geocaching in 2011.

Sounds like arm chair discovering to me. I doubt he was anywhere near either of those two TBs.

 

Saw a few logs around Christmas time.

Along the lines of: "Clearing phone/gps/camera/notes at the end of a years caching. Saw/photographed at some point, thanks for sharing"

[+Team Microdot]

Another arm-chair logger on the loose!

Discovering some Trackables from images I took or found.

Some of them were taken long ago.

I hope I have read all codes correctly, some of the numbers were a bit vague.

 

Thanks for sharing.

 

This cacher has 'discovered' several thousand trackables in the last few months. Two of mine he 'discovered' Agent Rusty Bear and Florida have been missing since 2009. The cacher joined geocaching in 2011.

Sounds like arm chair discovering to me. I doubt he was anywhere near either of those two TBs.

 

Saw a few logs around Christmas time.

Along the lines of: "Clearing phone/gps/camera/notes at the end of a years caching. Saw/photographed at some point, thanks for sharing"

 

I think I'd be tempted to ask for better evidence of WHEN, given that most devices are quite capable of attaching a timestamp to that information and, if it wasn't forthcoming - delete the log

[+Ladybug Kids]

I suppose this is one reason why Groundspeak did not substitute codewords for logbooks. Due to all of the people sharing TB#s without looking at them, the next step would be for the same thing to occur with caches. For some reason having the code seems to make it legit.

It already happens with Lab Caches. Cachers at the 2014 Going Ape Event were receiving "Greetings from Germany" e-mails offering to trade Lab Cache codes across the pond before the Going Ape Event even started. One "poor" guy made the mistake of sending an e-mail to a Groundspeak Lackey at the event...guess what happened to his/her account? Edited January 15, 2015 by Ladybug Kids

[+Shinook & White Juan]

I wonder if the TB number was shared with Groundspeak if they would respond in any way?

 

Nope. They gave up policing this kind of stuff in the past year or so. The floodgates have been opened.

 

You weren't around when the floodgates were opened for power trails to be allowed, were you Mrs. I? Well, this is how many of us felt back then, we couldn't believe it. This one just didn't get much publicity.

 

In all seriousness though, I guess Groundspeak doesn't advertise it, but virtual logging of TB's is allowed if the owner allows it. A local Geocaching organization, for example, is free to put their tracking number up on Facebook and/or all over the internet, and have anyone anywhere in the world discover it. And from what I've seen, they'd have thousands of people take them up on it.

 

That's no fun, I like finding tb's the old fashioned way.

Edited January 15, 2015 by Shinook & White Juan

[+worstcaster]

Pity them, for they are sad inside.

[+GeoLog81]

If there were no badges and challenges for disovering a lot of trackables, and there would be no mass-loging facilities such as project-gc, the people would limit their discovering to some really nice trackables.

 

However, it would probably heavily decrease the interest in logging moves as well. I see it by the events when I have some Geokrety. There is almost no interest, because there are no shiny points on Project-GC or for challenges.

 

Because Groundspeak makes money on trackables, no wonder they are not interesting in shortening that discovery hype.