Policing Cheats?

[+Delta68]

With all normal cache types the cache owner has the ability [and responsibility?] to delete bogus logs. Is this possible with Lab Caches?

 

We got an email the other day from xxxx asking for lab cache codes he had missed in Spain.

 

He's logged 1 Giga and 2 Megas one of which didn't have any Lab Caches giving a theoretical maximum of 40 yet he has managed to 'find' 171!

 

If Groundspeak want to maintain credibility of Lab Caches there ought to be a way of preventing cheating.

 

M

[+cerberus1]

With all normal cache types the cache owner has the ability [and responsibility?] to delete bogus logs. Is this possible with Lab Caches?

 

We got an email the other day from xxxx asking for lab cache codes he had missed in Spain.

 

He's logged 1 Giga and 2 Megas one of which didn't have any Lab Caches giving a theoretical maximum of 40 yet he has managed to 'find' 171!

 

If Groundspeak want to maintain credibility of Lab Caches there ought to be a way of preventing cheating.

 

M

Credibility in lab caches?

- Those things have had issues since their beginning.

 

I agree this behavior bugs some people, but you could have sent your issues directly to Groundspeak, instead of kinda going against the TOU, calling out someone by name in the forums.

[+Delta68]

...you could have sent your issues directly to Groundspeak, instead of kinda going against the TOU, calling out someone by name in the forums.

 

In what way is that going against TOU?

 

I can't see anything in the rules which says referring to another cacher is not allowed. This cacher obviously thinks it's fine or else he wouldn't do it in the first place

 

M

[+Ma & Pa]

...you could have sent your issues directly to Groundspeak, instead of kinda going against the TOU, calling out someone by name in the forums.

 

In what way is that going against TOU?

 

I can't see anything in the rules which says referring to another cacher is not allowed. This cacher obviously thinks it's fine or else he wouldn't do it in the first place

 

M

 

Well you called him a cheat. I guess that is OK. And then you say it again in another way. Sdo I guess that is OK too. And if you are wrong, who cares

[+The A-Team]

If Groundspeak want to maintain credibility of Lab Caches there ought to be a way of preventing cheating.

First, there are no publicly visible log records for Lab caches, so the only place his "bogus" "logs" are reflected are on his own profile.

Second, Lab caches are just a testing ground. Until Groundspeak caved and started counting them as finds, they were completely separate from all the other caches. I expect the current incarnation of Lab caches (testing temporary caches) will end in the not-too-distant future and the whole program may just end if they don't have any further concepts to test.

 

Unfortunately, now that they're included in the find count, they're eligible for knicker-twisting. Still, the only place these "logs" will be reflected is on his profile, so who's it really affecting? Basically what I'm asking is, why do you care? Deny his request if you don't agree with it and move on. If he gets the codes from someone else, how does that affect you, me, or anyone else? From what I can see, it will have no effect on any of us.

[+cerberus1]

...you could have sent your issues directly to Groundspeak, instead of kinda going against the TOU, calling out someone by name in the forums.

 

In what way is that going against TOU?

 

I can't see anything in the rules which says referring to another cacher is not allowed. This cacher obviously thinks it's fine or else he wouldn't do it in the first place

 

M

 

Well you called him a cheat. I guess that is OK. And then you say it again in another way. Sdo I guess that is OK too. And if you are wrong, who cares

+1

 

I believe mentioning them by name, with a profile link, makes it personal too.

Guess someone agreed.

[+Yoda911]

I' ve got a lot of labcaches founds and was not at the associated Mega Event itself.

You may see them a bit as the old virtuals: it is possible to find the code by internet recherche / google street view / guessing etc.

There is no logbook required, you only have to find out the code and get the found point. Otherwise Groundspeak has to change this characteristics of the labcaches.

[+lamoracke]

There is no log book for a lab cache. I have had my share of emails from overseas folks looking for lab cache answers if I log them first or in the top 10, but there is no signature required, one just needs a code. Have seen folks with over 300 lab caches now. Personally I won't log a lab cache from a Mega if I was not there.

[+GeoLog81]

Most lab caches you can find without entering the paid area. On the very few megas I've visited, the logbook was available only in the paid area, and there was no information if and when it will be available for sign to 'free riders'. Some people feel uncomfortable to log Mega if they haven't entered the paid area and haven't signed the logbook, although neither of those is required to log Mega according to guidelines.

 

While the case you described is most likely a fraud, there's no general ^Mega=>^LabCaches rule.

[+lamoracke]

No, there is no rule that you have to be at a Mega to log a lab cache. I saw a recent German lab event at a mega that I guessed an answer for fun on one of their webcams, got it right and then deleted it. My own personal code of standards says to me that unless I am at that event, I should not log lab caches there. That is me. However, if its a lab event not connected to a Mega and I know the answer without bugging past finders, I may log that because I can do the internet research or use my brain on those. However, if some folks are not bound by their own ethics and they will log every single lab cache in the world, regardless if they were at the associated Mega, there is no guideline saying they cannot.

[+lumbricus]

It's interesting how they do it. I know some accounts with 1,200+ logged lab caches, but in one case only 7 Mega Events and three Giga Events attended. The codes are only availbale for a short time, so there has to be a very good system to come up to 1,200+.

[+hzoi]

I' ve got a lot of labcaches founds and was not at the associated Mega Event itself.

You may see them a bit as the old virtuals: it is possible to find the code by internet recherche / google street view / guessing etc.

There is no logbook required, you only have to find out the code and get the found point. Otherwise Groundspeak has to change this characteristics of the labcaches.

 

You mean the old "armchair" virtuals that were all archived, like Wo war ich nur? I do see this as the same issue -- since all of those old virtuals that were either designed to be done from home, or didn't have sufficient safeguards against fake logs, either had to get changed or were archived.

 

One can also look around the classroom during an exam and see answers on other test papers. That doesn't mean it is the preferred technique to answering the test question. But I will let you define personal integrity in your own way and just hope that your particular approach doesn't help spell the end of lab caches. Edit to add: Suffice it to say that it is no accident that "Greetings from Germany" has become a punchline on geocaching.com -- it is directly because of attitudes such as yours regarding false logs on virtual and lab caches.

 

(By the way, of the 876 "finds" on Wo war ich nur, you will find my found it log -- but you'll also see a picture of me at the coordinates. I think I'm one of about eight geocachers that actually took the time to visit the site in Marburg.)

Edited September 7, 2016 by hzoi

[+hzoi]

No, there is no rule that you have to be at a Mega to log a lab cache. I saw a recent German lab event at a mega that I guessed an answer for fun on one of their webcams, got it right and then deleted it. My own personal code of standards says to me that unless I am at that event, I should not log lab caches there. That is me. However, if its a lab event not connected to a Mega and I know the answer without bugging past finders, I may log that because I can do the internet research or use my brain on those. However, if some folks are not bound by their own ethics and they will log every single lab cache in the world, regardless if they were at the associated Mega, there is no guideline saying they cannot.

 

I respectfully disagree.

 

Lab Cache FAQs:

 

How does a Lab Cache work?

 

These mostly work the same as regular geocaches: navigate to the location, find the cache and sign the logbook. However, these differ in that you must use the find code in order to mark the geocache as found.

 

Does a lab cache have to involve a container? Are there other limitations (multis, etc.)?

 

A container is preferred, but not necessary. The location can even be indoors. The finder just needs to visit the location, then discover and enter a code to "unlock" the find.

 

...

 

How can I get the Lab Cache icon on my profile?

 

Attend an Event where a Lab Cache is being offered and find one!

 

 

That's three different ways of saying that lab caches are not special and that one should actually travel to the location and solve for the code word before logging.

 

I think it's pretty clear that "guess or otherwise obtain a lab cache code word and log it without ever having attended the connected event" runs against the guidelines on lab caches and is not just dependent on personal ethics.

Edited September 7, 2016 by hzoi

[+HHL]

[...]

I think it's pretty clear that "guess or otherwise obtain a lab cache code word and log it without ever having attended the connected event" runs against the guidelines on lab caches and is not just dependent on personal ethics.

 

+1

 

Hans

[+igator210]

I live in an area that was very fortunate to have had, a few summers ago, 80 lab caches posted around the city. This was a special promotion to highlight art work. This was not associated with any event.

 

A vast majority of local cachers did the lab caches while they were active. A vast majority of local cachers also got unconsolidated emails from non local cachers wanting the codes. There was a bit of frustration for the local cachers.

Edited September 20, 2016 by igator210

[+Cardinal Red]

What is an "unconsolidated" email.

[+allrounder]

I think it should be unsolicited...

[+Albatross1901]

By coincidence I have seen in the cache statistics of a geocacher some strange details:

Visited 8 Mega-Events and 3 Giga-Events - Found 2.054 Lab Caches.

I even did not know that Lab Caches accumulate to such a high number. As they are some kind of promotion for Mega and Giga Events and in view of the Event visits can anyone explain to me how 2.054 Lab Caches can be found when visiting 11 Events only.

Is this all cheating ?

[+noncentric]

On 2/2/2018 at 8:51 AM, Albatross1901 said:

By coincidence I have seen in the cache statistics of a geocacher some strange details:

Visited 8 Mega-Events and 3 Giga-Events - Found 2.054 Lab Caches.

I even did not know that Lab Caches accumulate to such a high number. As they are some kind of promotion for Mega and Giga Events and in view of the Event visits can anyone explain to me how 2.054 Lab Caches can be found when visiting 11 Events only.

Is this all cheating ?

Want to respond to a couple things here:

(1)  Lab Caches based on Mega/Giga Event attendance:  These events are not the only place to find Lab Caches. There are some community-based promotions that offer Lab Caches. There have been several in the Seattle area, like THIS and THIS and THIS and others.  Of course, it wouldn't be surprising if the Seattle area has more than other areas, simply because it is the home of HQ. But similar non-event Lab Caches can exist in other places.  The Lab Caches homepage shows 3 different series currently available in Seattle, another in Maryland, and another in the Czech Republic. None of these are based on Mega/Giga events.

(2)  Cheating:  The earlier posts in this thread address a similar question about "bogus" logs. Some Lab Cache code words can be figured out without visiting the location, some cachers send emails asking other cachers for the code words, some cachers find the code words on websites or other places. My guess is that a cacher with 2000+ Lab Caches employed one or more of these methods to get code words, but I could be wrong. I know of another cacher that has even more than 2,054 Lab Caches in their profile. If you want to see a list of all the Lab Caches available, then you could look at this thread for an idea of how many total have ever been available.