Jump to content

Is This Really caching?


Followers 5

Recommended Posts

This July I'm planning a cache at the end of a 5 mile hike at a Lake called Beaver Lake in Beaver Creek, Co. I was looking at the pages of the few other caches in the mountains near it and I saw this log on a Geocache that was a terrain 5 difficulty. I'm really dumbfounded that someone would so shamelessly claim a false find on a cache and completely admit it in the log. Is this really chatting and is this the way that the game is going? I'm new to the game only having started in April of 2014 and love it but am really starting to see what the old timers complain about. I see more and more logs that go something like this: "Found where the cache would be. TFTC and my favorite and probably the most controversial: "Found the Lid of the cache, claiming a find. TFTC". Heres the exact log I found, Thanks for looking.

 

http://i1026.photobucket.com/albums/y324/lincolnrychecky/Screen%20Shot%202015-06-04%20at%2011.15.39%20AM_zps5qbppd2o.png

Edited by BigLinc16
Link to comment

I'm new to the game only having started in April of 4014 and love it but am really starting to see what the old timers complain about.

A vision from the future! A prophet sent back to warn us! :grin:

 

You'll see a bit of this. And it is troubling when the scale is apparently growing. But the unfortunate truth is that you can only really control how you geocache, and hope that you can impart wisdom and more ethical behavior on cachers around you.

Link to comment

Ok, sorry about the link. Heres what the log said typed out. "Visited the Fowler- Hilliard Hut this last weekend...lots of snow! (see photo) I spent a great deal of time digging around the cache site(all the way down the the dirt) while my friends were out skiing. Really feel that the cache is no longer there, especially when it's last discovery was back in 2009. :( Im putting down this effort as a Smiley because of the effort to get up to the hut and all the digging in the middle of the winter. We back country skied and snowshoed up McAllister Gulch from the Pando Trailhead (5.1 miles with a 2500 ft. elevation gain) Would have loved to sign the log... :( TFTC anyway as, even though it was not physically found, I had a lot of fun looking :P "

 

End log

 

The cache has been found since multiple times and it is clearly still there.

Edited by BigLinc16
Link to comment

This July I'm planning a cache at the end of a 5 mile hike at a Lake called Beaver Lake in Beaver Creek, Co. I was looking at the pages of the few other caches in the mountains near it and I saw this log on a Geocache that was a terrain 5 difficulty. I'm really dumbfounded that someone would so shamelessly claim a false find on a cache and completely admit it in the log. Is this really chatting and is this the way that the game is going? I'm new to the game only having started in April of 2014 and love it but am really starting to see what the old timers complain about. I see more and more logs that go something like this: "Found where the cache would be. TFTC and my favorite and probably the most controversial: "Found the Lid of the cache, claiming a find. TFTC". Heres the exact log I found, Thanks for looking.

 

http://i1026.photobucket.com/albums/y324/lincolnrychecky/Screen%20Shot%202015-06-04%20at%2011.15.39%20AM_zps5qbppd2o.png

 

No, this is definitely not caching! And I don't think it's the way that the game is going either. Now if they had left a throw-down. . . .

I think it's just an individual quirk, and there seem to be more of them because there are so many more quirky individuals "playing" the game now than in the old days.

Link to comment

Ok, sorry about the link. Heres what the log said typed out. "Visited the Fowler- Hilliard Hut this last weekend...lots of snow! (see photo) I spent a great deal of time digging around the cache site(all the way down the the dirt) while my friends were out skiing. Really feel that the cache is no longer there, especially when it's last discovery was back in 2009. :( Im putting down this effort as a Smiley because of the effort to get up to the hut and all the digging in the middle of the winter. We back country skied and snowshoed up McAllister Gulch from the Pando Trailhead (5.1 miles with a 2500 ft. elevation gain) Would have loved to sign the log... :( TFTC anyway as, even though it was not physically found, I had a lot of fun looking :P "

 

End log

 

The cache has been found since multiple times and it is clearly still there.

 

It's the norm where I am. Ever since the app became popular, most newbies aren't logging DNFs. Instead it's 'Found it - the cache is not there. Thanks for the cache.'

And throwdowns are increasing too. Some new cachers in my area can't handle not logging a find, so carry a sackful of pill bottles to throw down so they can claim the find. And they always leave a log about how they're helping the cache owner and the next finder. This is particularly irritating when the cache was that close to being archived because of a delinquent owner. mad.gif

Link to comment

It happens. But keep this in mind - geocaching is a game. People who cheat generally only cheat themselves.

 

On two occasions, I have logged DNF's with a NM, only to have the cache owner replace the cache and then tell me to go ahead and log the find because the container was missing. So the opposite also happens.

 

It's a game. Don't get worked up about it.

Link to comment

It happens. But keep this in mind - geocaching is a game. People who cheat generally only cheat themselves.

The key word is "generally".

 

Logging a Find in a case like this creates a false impression for the next finders that the cache is in place. Now, while I highly doubt anyone would go after a T5 cache without doing more in depth research, it isn't much of a stretch to see how this is an issue.

 

Personally, I filter out any caches that have 3 straight DNFs so they never hit my GPSr. Multiple times I have been looking for a cache and after being unsuccessful, check the previous logs and discover the last "finder" decided to take the smiley even though they didn't find the cache. It's getting less unusual to notice a pattern of DNF, DNF, DNF, DNF, Found It (usually with a log that says nothing more than 'TFTC'), DNF, DNF, DNF, etc...

Link to comment

It's the norm where I am. Ever since the app became popular, most newbies aren't logging DNFs. Instead it's 'Found it - the cache is not there. Thanks for the cache.'

 

The log in the OP was posted by a cacher with 871 "finds".

 

Which is what I've been thinking for quite a while..."big numbers" finders...do they really "find" caches, or do they claim them because of the effort expended in searching?

 

B.

Link to comment

I'd rather see this, where some effort was made into finding the cache, after spending hours getting there and back, than to see people claiming finds on caches that weren't there by signing a throw down, or doing the container swap game.

 

In both cases it's wrong.

Link to comment

Well, first of all, of course it's really caching. The search was the caching, so it would really be caching whether he claimed a find or a DNF.

 

And that's really the problem: the poor guy lost sight of the fact that he's out there for the experience, not to bump a silly find count. He would have had the same experience even if he'd logged a DNF, but for some reason he thought claiming the find was important. I remember back before I had a thousand finds thinking that way after I worked really hard for a find but ultimately failed, so I can't really be too hard on someone else making that mistake.

Link to comment

This type of thing happens from time to time and it's not really new. The onus is on the cache owner to maintain the cache, and that includes the logs.

 

Cache owner's last visit via browser was Friday, 27 August 2004. :(

 

Anybody wanna post a long-distance NA? :)

Perhaps why the cache is getting "Found It" logs for not really finding the cache and signing a log... <_<

Link to comment

It's the norm where I am. Ever since the app became popular, most newbies aren't logging DNFs. Instead it's 'Found it - the cache is not there. Thanks for the cache.'

 

The log in the OP was posted by a cacher with 871 "finds".

 

Which is what I've been thinking for quite a while..."big numbers" finders...do they really "find" caches, or do they claim them because of the effort expended in searching?

 

B.

 

You're right about that. The big numbers people want that smiley at all costs. They in particular like to leave the throwdowns and then add how they are helping the game.

 

Did a cemetery find recently where the last cacher posted a NM and was publicly racked over the coals by the cache owner. There had been 9 months of DNFs, in between there were 2 newbie 'Found it's. The cache owner chastised the NMer because there were 2 founds logged in between the DNFs so it was there. Then the next person, me DNF'd the cache. Then the next person a numbers cacher, almost 20,000 finds leaves a log saying the cache was missing and he left a pill bottle and thanked the cache owner for placing the cache. blink.gif The cache owner thanked the numbers guy profusely for confirming the cache was gone and leaving the throwdown. dry.gif What? The previous 12 DNFs and 1 NM in 9 months didn't confirm it. Thanks for enabling this delinquent belligerent cacher Mr. Numbers Cacher. mad.gif

 

 

Link to comment

It's the norm where I am. Ever since the app became popular, most newbies aren't logging DNFs. Instead it's 'Found it - the cache is not there. Thanks for the cache.'

 

The log in the OP was posted by a cacher with 871 "finds".

 

Which is what I've been thinking for quite a while..."big numbers" finders...do they really "find" caches, or do they claim them because of the effort expended in searching?

 

B.

 

You're right about that. The big numbers people want that smiley at all costs. They in particular like to leave the throwdowns and then add how they are helping the game.

Sorry, but that is a generalization that I must dispute. I used to cache with a certain very big numbers guy, and I have friends that still cache with him on occasion, and the only "throwdowns" that I have known him to leave were by the cache owner's prior permission. I remember times when I had to grab his arm and pull him away from a cache that we couldn't find, reminding him that we could have found a half-dozen in the time we were looking for this one.

 

I'm sure there are plenty of big-numbers guys that do cheat, but don't put them all in the same basket.

Link to comment

It's the norm where I am. Ever since the app became popular, most newbies aren't logging DNFs. Instead it's 'Found it - the cache is not there. Thanks for the cache.'

 

The log in the OP was posted by a cacher with 871 "finds".

 

Which is what I've been thinking for quite a while..."big numbers" finders...do they really "find" caches, or do they claim them because of the effort expended in searching?

 

B.

 

I think very few geocachers would refer to someone with a find rate of 0.75/day (and less than 0.5 finds/day over the last couple of years) as a big numbers cacher.

Link to comment

Ok, sorry about the link. Heres what the log said typed out. "Visited the Fowler- Hilliard Hut this last weekend...lots of snow! (see photo) I spent a great deal of time digging around the cache site(all the way down the the dirt) while my friends were out skiing. Really feel that the cache is no longer there, especially when it's last discovery was back in 2009. :( Im putting down this effort as a Smiley because of the effort to get up to the hut and all the digging in the middle of the winter. We back country skied and snowshoed up McAllister Gulch from the Pando Trailhead (5.1 miles with a 2500 ft. elevation gain) Would have loved to sign the log... :( TFTC anyway as, even though it was not physically found, I had a lot of fun looking :P "

 

End log

 

The cache has been found since multiple times and it is clearly still there.

 

Actually, the cache has been found twice since that log, in July and August of 2013.

I wouldn't have claimed a find either but I would not have put much hope on a find on a snow covered mountain at over 11,000' in Colorado in February. Come to think of it, I did log a DNF on a snow covered cache at 8,500' in CO. Might have to go back and clear that up...

Link to comment

The log in the OP was posted by a cacher with 871 "finds".

 

Which is what I've been thinking for quite a while..."big numbers" finders...do they really "find" caches, or do they claim them because of the effort expended in searching?

 

B.

I have to admit, after reading a lot of what some "cachers" do on these pages, I'm not very inclined to think much of high-numbers guys. I can't help thinking they are either armchair loggers, throwdowners, leap-froggers, or just log everything as a find because they spent a minute looking for it (or even just loaded it on their gps). What I don't think is that they went up to each and every cache, opened it, signed the log, and carefully put it back the way they found it.

 

I'm sure there are plenty of cachers with high counts who did do it right, but their reputation is sullied by the cheaters.

Link to comment

Not unusual at all. I did one today where the second to last log was a DNF that said "I spent a lot of time looking and couldn't find it but I had a good time." The last log was the same cacher and a found log that said "The owner said I could log this as a find"

 

There are more cache owners than you would think that would rather do that then go out and check to see if the cache is still there. I have had a bunch of times where I go for a cache and after a few minutes look at the last few logs that are all finds but they say they didn't find. There is a class of people who think looking for a cache is the same as finding.

Link to comment

The log in the OP was posted by a cacher with 871 "finds".

 

Which is what I've been thinking for quite a while..."big numbers" finders...do they really "find" caches, or do they claim them because of the effort expended in searching?

 

B.

I have to admit, after reading a lot of what some "cachers" do on these pages, I'm not very inclined to think much of high-numbers guys. I can't help thinking they are either armchair loggers, throwdowners, leap-froggers, or just log everything as a find because they spent a minute looking for it (or even just loaded it on their gps). What I don't think is that they went up to each and every cache, opened it, signed the log, and carefully put it back the way they found it.

 

I'm sure there are plenty of cachers with high counts who did do it right, but their reputation is sullied by the cheaters.

Yes, I have to admit after reading about what low number cachers do, and seeing what they do in their logs I'm very inclined not to think much of low number cachers. I can't help think all they want to do is inflate their numbers and cheat by writing notes on a cache as a found it, logging the cache is missing with a found it, logging a DNF with a found it, in fact it seems like the only log they know how to log is a found it. And when I look at the logs of he caches I find it is surprising how many times the signature of the low number cacher is not on the log of he cache they claim they found. And half the time if I come after them I find they just threw the cache down on the ground and made no attempt to place it back where it belongs. I'm sure there might be one or two low number cachers that do it right, but their reputation is forever ruined by the large majority of the low number cheaters.

Link to comment

I guess if going by the line set here of 800 something being a high number cacher I am one. I like to think I play by the rules as much as possible and how I see them. The reason I have a high number is because I cache every day. Been doing it for about 4 years and often go out on day trips with friends just caching so the numbers come with that not just looking at the cache description.

 

There are some instances where I might be wrong though. I will sometimes (Definitely not always as I have signed many puzzles I have yet to log as a find)log a puzzle I have signed but not solved. I will most times say in my log I found it with whoever and signed the log but didn't solve it.

 

Then like mentioned here. If I dug threw the snow for hours and didn't find anything there would be no way I would log it as a find. However if I dug threw the snow for hours and found the lid to what I know was the cache and the rest was missing. I would definitely give some thought to logging a find on it. Not sure in all cases I would but I might find a reason to think I should. It all comes down to that cache. If I didn't find anything though that would clearly be a DNF.

Link to comment

I have to admit, after reading a lot of what some "cachers" do on these pages, I'm not very inclined to think much of high-numbers guys. I can't help thinking they are either armchair loggers, throwdowners, leap-froggers, or just log everything as a find because they spent a minute looking for it (or even just loaded it on their gps). What I don't think is that they went up to each and every cache, opened it, signed the log, and carefully put it back the way they found it.

 

I'm sure there are plenty of cachers with high counts who did do it right, but their reputation is sullied by the cheaters.

 

After 9 years I have 5000+ founds and I dare you to find 1 (only one) found log where I did not sign the log myself, where I did not solve the mystery myself, did not visit and find the WPs of a multi or visited and answered all questions for EC's and virtuals.

I even have a high DNF score B)

 

Remember, just one, until then you have no right to say who's reputation in sullied by cheaters. Of course there are people who cheat but I think cheating has nothing to do with high or low find numbers. I've seen found it logs on caches that were missing for weeks by people with <20 founds as well as with >10000. No difference whatsoever.

Link to comment

It happens. But keep this in mind - geocaching is a game. People who cheat generally only cheat themselves.

The key word is "generally".

 

Logging a Find in a case like this creates a false impression for the next finders that the cache is in place.

 

You have to be kidding me. Is it that hard to read a log that short? BTW, a string of DNF's, plus my "diligent search" DNF, will get a NM from me (depending on the difficulty). I can't imagine anyone planning to hike 5 miles to try to find a cache without reading the prior logs.

 

BTW, I have found caches plenty of where multiple DNF's occured before me. In one case, the 5 prior DNF's (in a row) had a combined 45 years of experience and 50,000+ finds. Those who filter on strictly a string of DNF's are only cheating themselves.

Edited by AustinMN
Link to comment

Well, first of all, of course it's really caching. The search was the caching, so it would really be caching whether he claimed a find or a DNF.

 

And that's really the problem: the poor guy lost sight of the fact that he's out there for the experience, not to bump a silly find count. He would have had the same experience even if he'd logged a DNF, but for some reason he thought claiming the find was important. I remember back before I had a thousand finds thinking that way after I worked really hard for a find but ultimately failed, so I can't really be too hard on someone else making that mistake.

 

+1

Link to comment

I have to admit, after reading a lot of what some "cachers" do on these pages, I'm not very inclined to think much of high-numbers guys. I can't help thinking they are either armchair loggers, throwdowners, leap-froggers, or just log everything as a find because they spent a minute looking for it (or even just loaded it on their gps). What I don't think is that they went up to each and every cache, opened it, signed the log, and carefully put it back the way they found it.

 

I'm sure there are plenty of cachers with high counts who did do it right, but their reputation is sullied by the cheaters.

 

After 9 years I have 5000+ founds and I dare you to find 1 (only one) found log where I did not sign the log myself, where I did not solve the mystery myself, did not visit and find the WPs of a multi or visited and answered all questions for EC's and virtuals.

I even have a high DNF score B)

 

Remember, just one, until then you have no right to say who's reputation in sullied by cheaters. Of course there are people who cheat but I think cheating has nothing to do with high or low find numbers. I've seen found it logs on caches that were missing for weeks by people with <20 founds as well as with >10000. No difference whatsoever.

 

In my example the cacher had 20,000 in 6 years. But more importantly, it's about those high number cachers that actually write that they left a throwdown, and write that they did it to help, then count their throwdown as a find. The high numbers cacher in my example also he said he needed the cemetery cache 'find' to qualify for a cemetery challenge cache. So now a delinquent cache owner gets his behaviour reinforced.

 

Finds on caches that aren't there, finds on throwdowns, false finds and throwdowns to qualify for challenges, finds that enable delinquent cache ownership - not a good thing for the pastime.

Edited by L0ne.R
Link to comment

I can't imagine anyone planning to hike 5 miles to try to find a cache without reading the prior logs.

 

Hike 5 miles for a cache - that's rare these days. And in that rare instance I would expect that someone will more likely plan their hike and read the logs to see if the cache is likely there before heading out.

But there have been plenty of times when I'm in the car, see the waypoint on my Garmin then drive 20 minutes out of my way for one more find before heading home. I check the logs once I've parked. See a string of DNFs with 2 recent "Like", "Found" logs from basic members. Is it really there? Did the cache owner replace the cache? Nope, the cache isn't there. Waste of time and gas money.

Link to comment

openly acknowledged false finds have been happening forever. Here are a few great bogus find logs:

 

"If it had been there I would have found it." (A Central Park cache that was found several times over the next two days.)

 

"I won't be coming back again so I'm claiming the find."

 

"I saw where it should have been so I'm claiming the find."

 

And my all time favorite example of distorted logic: "Couldn't log a DNF, because it wasn't there to be found."

Edited by hukilaulau
Link to comment

BTW, I have found caches plenty of where multiple DNF's occured before me. In one case, the 5 prior DNF's (in a row) had a combined 45 years of experience and 50,000+ finds. Those who filter on strictly a string of DNF's are only cheating themselves.

I don't think anyone is claiming it's impossible to find caches that have multiple DNFs as their most recent logs. The claim is that they're more likely to be missing.

 

Those who filter on recent DNFs aren't cheating anyone; they merely have a searching style that differs from yours. Some people enjoy finding caches as well as the journey that takes them there. If a cache has a string of recent DNFs, then that cache is more likely to be missing and searchers are less likely to experience the fun of finding it. So, they might opt to look for other caches instead. Once the DNFed cache has been replaced (or found by another geocacher), then the people who previously had skipped it might choose to search for it.

 

On the other hand, some geocachers might enjoy finding caches that others have been unable to find. That style of geocaching is okay, too. Different strokes for different folks.

Link to comment

I noted this on the "Didn't Find = Found It" thread, but in short:

 

We apparently had a 10,000-"find" cacher pass through town this spring. On a series of 22 caches along a 4-mile hike, which no cacher has yet found all caches on the first go'round, this visitor claimed to have found all 22 caches with a nonchalant:

 

"Starting our day off with a little hike before we head South again looking for more sunshine. Thanks for the cache and the fun we had doing it".

 

The trail begins at a parking lot and ends the loop with the last cache about 600' from the starting point. This guy found and signed the first one, then apparently left ... but not before claiming all 22 caches as "found". He then continued on to another series south of us and claimed all of those, which is also almost impossible given the amount of time necessary to do so (not to mention high water impeding access to the caches at that time).

 

Not only is this guy cheating himself, he's sort of cheapening the whole experience for everyone (and particularly the cache owners who put legitimate effort into hiding and maintaining their caches).

Link to comment

Not only is this guy cheating himself, he's sort of cheapening the whole experience for everyone (and particularly the cache owners who put legitimate effort into hiding and maintaining their caches).

 

If the cache owners take exception to it, they can delete the logs since he didn't sign the logbooks.

 

The best way to combat this is to be diligent about your own cache maintenance.

Link to comment
Yes, I have to admit after reading about what low number cachers do, and seeing what they do in their logs I'm very inclined not to think much of low number cachers. I can't help think all they want to do is inflate their numbers and cheat by writing notes on a cache as a found it, logging the cache is missing with a found it, logging a DNF with a found it, in fact it seems like the only log they know how to log is a found it. And when I look at the logs of he caches I find it is surprising how many times the signature of the low number cacher is not on the log of he cache they claim they found. And half the time if I come after them I find they just threw the cache down on the ground and made no attempt to place it back where it belongs. I'm sure there might be one or two low number cachers that do it right, but their reputation is forever ruined by the large majority of the low number cheaters.

 

Huh? :unsure:

 

On topic, unfortunately, with today's standards, it's considered caching. Of course it's been going on for years but there's no doubt that the more recent attitude that smiley count is the name of the game causes some people to do funny things. Admitting to not finding anything but then logging is stu*, err, i mean silly. I agree, the practice can cause issues for other cachers, but on the whole, is something we shouldn't worry about too much. It's sad but we see silly things like this happen in just about everything around us these days.

Link to comment

Given geocaching's remarkably odd "scoring" structure (only finds count and all finds count the same: one "smilie") and it's even odder "smilie award system (it's done automatically by a computer program: anyone who logs a find, no matter how many times they log it, gets "smilie"), it encourages this type of "self cheating". Scoring that is based on the "honor system" always has this type of false claim issue and in this case the "referee" is the Cache Owner. If the CO cares to enforce the rule, they just delete the log.

Link to comment

BTW, I have found caches plenty of where multiple DNF's occured before me. In one case, the 5 prior DNF's (in a row) had a combined 45 years of experience and 50,000+ finds. Those who filter on strictly a string of DNF's are only cheating themselves.

I don't think anyone is claiming it's impossible to find caches that have multiple DNFs as their most recent logs. The claim is that they're more likely to be missing.

Very true. That's why when I think a cache is missing based on the DNFs, what I say is that the cache needs maintenance because the series of DNFs makes it look like it's not there, so it's a good time for the CO to visit the cache and confirm that it really is there. Of course, almost always I'm reasonably sure the cache isn't there -- a previous low failure rate, low difficulty rating, missed by seasoned cachers that don't miss much, etc. -- but I still cast the NM that way because I don't want to draw any conclusions based on my failure or anyone else's failure to find the cache. I leave it to the CO to conclude that the cache is obviously missing.

 

The trail begins at a parking lot and ends the loop with the last cache about 600' from the starting point. This guy found and signed the first one, then apparently left ... but not before claiming all 22 caches as "found". He then continued on to another series south of us and claimed all of those, which is also almost impossible given the amount of time necessary to do so (not to mention high water impeding access to the caches at that time).

I've been pretty astonished at what talented high volume cachers can accomplish, so I wouldn't jump to this conclusion until I'd looked at some of the other logs. Have you? If not, I wouldn't throw around this kind of accusation until you have. Once you've confirmed that they didn't sign the other logs, then, of course, you can heap on the ridicule as deep as you want.

 

Given geocaching's remarkably odd "scoring" structure (only finds count and all finds count the same: one "smilie") and it's even odder "smilie award system (it's done automatically by a computer program: anyone who logs a find, no matter how many times they log it, gets "smilie"), it encourages this type of "self cheating". Scoring that is based on the "honor system" always has this type of false claim issue and in this case the "referee" is the Cache Owner. If the CO cares to enforce the rule, they just delete the log.

It's not a scoring structure, hence your confusion. Admittedly, the people you're complaining about consider it a scoring structure, too, which is why they do these hinky things to get more finds, but the rest of us don't have to buy into their fantasy.

Link to comment

This type of thing happens from time to time and it's not really new. The onus is on the cache owner to maintain the cache, and that includes the logs.

 

Cache owner's last visit via browser was Friday, 27 August 2004. :(

 

Anybody wanna post a long-distance NA? :)

When the pig fly. :lol:

Link to comment

Not only is this guy cheating himself, he's sort of cheapening the whole experience for everyone (and particularly the cache owners who put legitimate effort into hiding and maintaining their caches).

 

If the cache owners take exception to it, they can delete the logs since he didn't sign the logbooks.

 

The best way to combat this is to be diligent about your own cache maintenance.

 

Yes, 21 of his 22 "finds" were deleted. I also see that this person, who tends to get a dozen or fewer caches per week, claimed to drive some 600 miles and find 125 (non-powertrail) caches on a later date during his roadtrip vacation, but that spans several states and many many dozens of C/O's. So, he's racked up some mighty impressive (?) numbers that are unlikely to be checked. I guess if he's impressed himself, good for him. It just seems to go against everything that geocaching should stand for, but to each their own, right?

Edited by MorWoods
Link to comment

Not only is this guy cheating himself, he's sort of cheapening the whole experience for everyone (and particularly the cache owners who put legitimate effort into hiding and maintaining their caches).

 

If the cache owners take exception to it, they can delete the logs since he didn't sign the logbooks.

 

The best way to combat this is to be diligent about your own cache maintenance.

 

Yes, 21 of his 22 "finds" were deleted. I also see that this person, who tends to get a dozen or fewer caches per week, claimed to drive some 600 miles and find 125 (non-powertrail) caches on a later date during his roadtrip vacation, but that spans several states and many many dozens of C/O's. So, he's racked up some mighty impressive (?) numbers that are unlikely to be checked. I guess if he's impressed himself, good for him. It just seems to go against everything that geocaching should stand for, but to each their own, right?

 

It used to be that geocaching was about going out and hunting for geocaches. This "play your own game" ethic has gotten the the point where actually hunting and finding geocaches is no longer a requirement. It doesn't resemble the game I signed up for. I have no idea what these other people are playing, but it ain't geocaching.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

On the same cache:

 

Experienced Cacher #1 with 4376 finds

"Found it"

When I had downloaded this cache it was still active, however, after arriving to GZ and and finding an empty "hanger mechanism", I found out that the cache had been disabled.

 

Experienced Cacher #2 with 7698 finds

"Found it"

We found the bracket and the fastener but no cache container. Search all around but nothing to be found. Signed the bracket.

 

:rolleyes:

 

B.

Link to comment

"It's not a scoring structure, hence your confusion"

"I've been pretty astonished at what talented high volume cachers can accomplish"

 

And the most astonishing thing is to be able to identify the talented high volume cachers with using the "scoring" structure...

Edited by edexter
Link to comment

I'd rather see this, where some effort was made into finding the cache, after spending hours getting there and back, than to see people claiming finds on caches that weren't there by signing a throw down, or doing the container swap game.

 

Accepting the lesser of two evils?

 

Both examples are wrong.

Link to comment

I'd rather see this, where some effort was made into finding the cache, after spending hours getting there and back, than to see people claiming finds on caches that weren't there by signing a throw down, or doing the container swap game.

 

Accepting the lesser of two evils?

 

Both examples are wrong.

 

Exactly. Personally, I'd rather see where some effort was made into finding the cache, after spending hours getting there and back...and logging a DNF if they cannot find it. He's honest about not finding the cache and honest about making the trip out there...so what's so dang hard about being honest with the type of log to post?

Link to comment

In my opinion, the cheating going on within Geocaching pales in comparison with that going on in Benchmarking. Maybe, that is why Geocaching.com has just about killed Benchmarking all together. Many BM logs are clearly logged in error. Usually someone sees a BM while out caching and then goes home and logs a find on the "nearest" BM to the cache coords. They almost always fail to post a clear photo of the BM to document the find. Posted photos often clearly document that the BM "find" is not the one being logged. The BM on top of Mt. Mitchell, NC was destroyed over 5 years ago when a new visiting area was constructed but people are still logging a find the BM that is not there. In the past, this behavior got me upset. Now, I just shake my head at the ignorance. Geocaching.com is providing a gaming experience but they are not a policing body. the cheaters are just cheating themselves and at some point will tire of the lie. Happy caching and benchmarking. You get out of it what you put in it.

Link to comment

In my opinion, the cheating going on within Geocaching pales in comparison with that going on in Benchmarking. Maybe, that is why Geocaching.com has just about killed Benchmarking all together. Many BM logs are clearly logged in error. Usually someone sees a BM while out caching and then goes home and logs a find on the "nearest" BM to the cache coords. They almost always fail to post a clear photo of the BM to document the find. Posted photos often clearly document that the BM "find" is not the one being logged. The BM on top of Mt. Mitchell, NC was destroyed over 5 years ago when a new visiting area was constructed but people are still logging a find the BM that is not there. In the past, this behavior got me upset. Now, I just shake my head at the ignorance. Geocaching.com is providing a gaming experience but they are not a policing body. the cheaters are just cheating themselves and at some point will tire of the lie. Happy caching and benchmarking. You get out of it what you put in it.

 

Since Benchmarks have no "log", the only way to demonstrate a find is to post a photo. If you are the first to log it, posting 3 photos (a closeup, GZ and a general setting view) is also helpful. Even fewer folks post dnfs for benchmarks though far more of them are missing...Since many benchmarks are also "off coords" adding the observed coords and/or the distance and direction they are "off" adds credence to a find claim. If website log contains none of this, I don't put much faith in a find claim. They may have found something, but no way to tell what...

Link to comment

Since Benchmarks have no "log", the only way to demonstrate a find is to post a photo. If you are the first to log it, posting 3 photos (a closeup, GZ and a general setting view) is also helpful. Even fewer folks post dnfs for benchmarks though far more of them are missing...Since many benchmarks are also "off coords" adding the observed coords and/or the distance and direction they are "off" adds credence to a find claim. If website log contains none of this, I don't put much faith in a find claim. They may have found something, but no way to tell what...

 

There are also those who claim a benchmark find based on a photo from someone else. <_<

Link to comment
Exactly. Personally, I'd rather see where some effort was made into finding the cache, after spending hours getting there and back...and logging a DNF if they cannot find it. He's honest about not finding the cache and honest about making the trip out there...so what's so dang hard about being honest with the type of log to post?

 

This is exactly how it should be done. Two weeks ago I was out with several of my friends. All of us fairly experienced cachers. We spent a long time climbing two separate trees. Looked everywhere. Trodded through mud to get there and fought off branches. All of us logged it as a DNF. The cache owner noted our logs and was out there to check on it within days. It was in fact missing. None of us ever even considered logging it as a Find. My friends were trying to fill one of their grid spots but lying to yourself to fill your grid doesn't really make much sense. At least to me (and to them.) The owner has replaced the cache and we'll return in a couple of weeks to try it again.

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...
Followers 5
×
×
  • Create New...