Curious. Did the cacher find the cache?

[+Harry Dolphin]

There is a cache on my watch list. I DNFed it in 2013. CO has been missing since 2009. It was part on an interesting series. I just received notification that it had been logged. Oh, frabjous day! Maybe I should go back and search again? Then I noticed that the new log was dated 2012. Hunh? Busy cacher backlogging finds? Nope. Member for five years. 24 finds. Former member of a team? Nope. No one else logged it within months of that log.

Looked at the cacher's other finds. Most are on archived caches, many by the same missing cacher. I have no way of telling when those logs were logged. Only have one on my watch list. Looked at another logged find, by the same missing CO. Last finders in 2014 logged it as not found in two years. Yet this cacher claimed a find five months earlier. Obviously that log was recent. In fact that finder posted a photo of the log today, that shows that there was no signature by that cacher. I guess he is curious too. It's on his watch list, and he says the log was posted yesterday.

Curious way to play the game! Pick a defunct CO, and log 24 finds over several years; at least two posted yesterday. But only log 24 finds???

I guess I do not understand this way to play the game.

[+geocat_]

I will never understand the joy people get from fake finds. Fortunately, I just don't care about their stupidity either.

[+The A-Team]

I have no way of telling when those logs were logged.

You can use the GL code of the logs to tell. If you bring up one of the logs, the GL code should be at the top-right. GL codes are assigned sequentially like GC codes, using a similar numbering scheme (numbers 0-9, letters A-Z except for ILOSU). The higher the number, the newer the log. Since you know when the watchlist log was created, you can compare the other logs' GL codes to that. If the codes are fairly close, then they were submitted around the same time. If you have access to lots of GL codes over a long period of time (e.g. in old notification emails), you can compare a GL code to those to narrow in on when a log was created.

[+Harry Dolphin]

I have no way of telling when those logs were logged.

You can use the GL code of the logs to tell. If you bring up one of the logs, the GL code should be at the top-right. GL codes are assigned sequentially like GC codes, using a similar numbering scheme (numbers 0-9, letters A-Z except for ILOSU). The higher the number, the newer the log. Since you know when the watchlist log was created, you can compare the other logs' GL codes to that. If the codes are fairly close, then they were submitted around the same time. If you have access to lots of GL codes over a long period of time (e.g. in old notification emails), you can compare a GL code to those to narrow in on when a log was created.

 

Ah! Interesting. 23 of the 24 logs have the same first six digits. Same as the log of the last finder who posted a note. That would mean that they were all logged yesterday. Though they were dated 2011 through 2015. Thanks. Tells me what I wanted to know.

[+GrateBear]

I will never understand the joy people get from fake finds. Fortunately, I just don't care about their stupidity either.

I'm with you on that! As, no doubt, are many of us true cachers.

[+lamoracke]

We have one cacher in my area that my friends are pretty sure rarely finds their caches....caches that are very hard to find, caches that are missing...we have occasionally checked logs and do not see that person's signature. Heck, once I was at a cache that was on my watchlist and that person logged it as found as I was logging the log book. Nope, definitely was not in there. I occasionally have tried to think why, its not like this person is high on numbers or doing challenges and I am not going to just ask them. So, sometimes one just never knows why folks do it.

[+Mausebiber]

So, sometimes one just never knows why folks do it.

 

Maybe he is playing a different game, who knows and why do we care?

[+J Grouchy]

There is a cache on my watch list. I DNFed it in 2013. CO has been missing since 2009. It was part on an interesting series. I just received notification that it had been logged. Oh, frabjous day! Maybe I should go back and search again? Then I noticed that the new log was dated 2012. Hunh? Busy cacher backlogging finds? Nope. Member for five years. 24 finds. Former member of a team? Nope. No one else logged it within months of that log.

Looked at the cacher's other finds. Most are on archived caches, many by the same missing cacher. I have no way of telling when those logs were logged. Only have one on my watch list. Looked at another logged find, by the same missing CO. Last finders in 2014 logged it as not found in two years. Yet this cacher claimed a find five months earlier. Obviously that log was recent. In fact that finder posted a photo of the log today, that shows that there was no signature by that cacher. I guess he is curious too. It's on his watch list, and he says the log was posted yesterday.

Curious way to play the game! Pick a defunct CO, and log 24 finds over several years; at least two posted yesterday. But only log 24 finds???

I guess I do not understand this way to play the game.

 

The bigger question is if it has been unfound for so long with an absentee owner, why doesn't it just get archived?

[+AustinMN]

The bigger question is if it has been unfound for so long with an absentee owner, why doesn't it just get archived?

 

+1.

[+lamoracke]

So, sometimes one just never knows why folks do it.

 

Maybe he is playing a different game, who knows and why do we care?

 

It does matter though. Twice this person has logged caches and that gave false hope the cache was not there and in fact, it was not there. So empty logging, logging just for the sake of logging can make it more difficult for folks. If a cache is indeed missing and then they falsely logging, its annoying to go out and then realize, nope...cache was not there after all, its just due to someone "playing their own game" as you say. Not coming up with a solution, but these kind of cachers can actually affect you sometimes too.

[+Bhob]

The bigger question is if it has been unfound for so long with an absentee owner, why doesn't it just get archived?

it does not look like that would slow this person down

the original post indicates that there have also been bogus post-dated find logs by them on several archived hides

[+Harry Dolphin]

So, sometimes one just never knows why folks do it.

 

Maybe he is playing a different game, who knows and why do we care?

 

In my case, I thought the cache on my watch list had been found, and was still there! Until I realized the log was from three ears ago.

In the other case mentioned, that was working on a Lonely Cache Challenge - Cache had not been found for two years. The fake log was two months before his find, and calls into question whether it was a lonely cache.

[+jellis]

There is a cache on my watch list. I DNFed it in 2013. CO has been missing since 2009. It was part on an interesting series. I just received notification that it had been logged. Oh, frabjous day! Maybe I should go back and search again? Then I noticed that the new log was dated 2012. Hunh? Busy cacher backlogging finds? Nope. Member for five years. 24 finds. Former member of a team? Nope. No one else logged it within months of that log.

Looked at the cacher's other finds. Most are on archived caches, many by the same missing cacher. I have no way of telling when those logs were logged. Only have one on my watch list. Looked at another logged find, by the same missing CO. Last finders in 2014 logged it as not found in two years. Yet this cacher claimed a find five months earlier. Obviously that log was recent. In fact that finder posted a photo of the log today, that shows that there was no signature by that cacher. I guess he is curious too. It's on his watch list, and he says the log was posted yesterday.

Curious way to play the game! Pick a defunct CO, and log 24 finds over several years; at least two posted yesterday. But only log 24 finds???

I guess I do not understand this way to play the game.

I have recently spotted someone logging on one I dnf'd. I looked at their finds and though they have been caching for awhile they seem to have the power to find caches in different parts of the world one day at a time. I also always get curious about someone who travels to Seattle to go to the Block Party and only logs that and nothing else and the next day they are back home. I have to remember they are only cheating themselves but if they log one of mine I will ask question or delete the log.