Jump to content

Geocaching HONESTY


bestvue

Recommended Posts

Since Planetary Pursuit was instigated presumably to encourage a enhanced geocaching activity, I have become aware of a considerable number of geocaching finds that appear to be "armchair finds" As an example one paid up member recorded finds in Japan, South Korea, Indonesia, Australia, in one day (today) and yesterday recorded finds in Australia, Iceland, Christmas island, Indonesia, and Guam. The day before that in South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, Antarctica, Saudi Arabia, UAE,  I  could go on and on....

Even given the some time logging errors this seems impossible.

As our numbers increase it seems more and more are "armchair finds" I wonder what other geocachers think.

Are we policing our activity correctly indeed is Geocaching.com doing enough in this regard

Finally should we have a name and shame column or even a scan code on geocaches to verify finds.

We have a great hobby shame that some (ab)users are miss using it.

 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
4 minutes ago, bestvue said:

Are we policing our activity correctly indeed is Geocaching.com doing enough in this regard

According to the guidelines, each cache owner agrees to "Delete logs that appear to be false or inappropriate."

What more do you think Groundspeak could do about armchair logs?

6 minutes ago, bestvue said:

Finally should we have a name and shame column or even a scan code on geocaches to verify finds.

Scan codes can be shared the same way trackable codes and puzzle solutions are shared. They're really no different from the keyword caches that were tried early on, but which are no longer allowed.

I've seen some cache owners recognize those who found their caches "correctly". The obvious implication is that others who have posted Find logs did not find the cache "correctly". But coming right out and shaming those who found a cache "incorrectly" is probably a violation of the site's terms of use (e.g., "content that threatens or attacks others" or "invasive of another's privacy, hateful, embarrassing, harmful to minors; or is otherwise reasonably objectionable to any person or entity").

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
 

According to the guidelines, each cache owner agrees to "Delete logs that appear to be false or inappropriate."

What more do you think Groundspeak could do about armchair logs?

 

Your point is well taken. However a cache taken is isolation is unlikely to show up any problem.

I became aware of the above mentioned user because by coincidence I was watching two caches that were more than a days travel apart. Just seeing my own would not have shown up any problem. In any event if I had logged 50 armchair caches and had only one or two deleted it wouldn't affect me. I believe Geocaching.com need to be more proactive in this regard. The solution is beyond me hence this thread.

Thanks for the comment.

Link to comment

There could be a good reason for some activities like you described it, an account split or something and a user is logging all finds from past visits.

Bur regardless, I'm always asking myself why someone is really caring about others Geocaching Honesty?  If there behave does not negative affect other geocachers, if they just log anything, so what?

Quite honestly, if I read this above, sneaking around and checking on other accounts, I always have the feeling, that people are stalking other cacher.  As mentioned above, it's the COs responsibility to take action and not yours.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
44 minutes ago, redsox_mark said:

Groundspeak does take action when an account is reported who is doing "serial bogus logging".     E.g disabling the account and mass deleting logs.

 

I just had a look at the log linked above and couldn't find any "Report" link for the log or the logger

Link to comment
21 minutes ago, Beardman75 said:

I just had a look at the log linked above and couldn't find any "Report" link for the log or the logger

Correct, there is no "report" button.

As CO, you can delete a log.   If you see an account who appears to be doing widespread "bogus" logging you can contact Groundspeak.  Write to Geocaching.com's Community Relations staff by sending an email to contact@Groundspeak.com with full details of what you've observed. 

Link to comment
1 minute ago, redsox_mark said:

Correct, there is no "report" button.

As CO, you can delete a log.   If you see an account who appears to be doing widespread "bogus" logging you can contact Groundspeak.  Write to Geocaching.com's Community Relations staff by sending an email to contact@Groundspeak.com with full details of what you've observed. 

There should be a link. Most people won't go to the bother of finding an email address to send an email to which, in turn, makes this kind of behaviour more widespread because people find that they can get away with it

Link to comment

At the bottom right corner of literally every page on the Geocaching.com website, there is a "Contact Us" link to the Help Center.  The Help Center is the preferred method of contact, rather than writing to the email address mentioned by redsox mark.  Using the Help Center, you don't even need to know or type an email address.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
4 hours ago, Mausebiber said:

Quite honestly, if I read this above, sneaking around and checking on other accounts, I always have the feeling, that people are stalking other cacher. 

I'm sure is people would really "sneak around" a lot more would surface :ph34r:

I don't actively search for bogus logs but came across plenty of questionable logs. I check the latest logs of archived caches after the weekly PQ update, a found log after a series of DNFs and a CO who archive after the cache is gone? Possible bogus. Recently something on a listing caught my eye, went to check the cachers profile and noticed 2 founds in a country we also visited. Just wanted to see he visited the same places and see 1 found (6-8 hour hike far away from any town)  and one webcam cache where everyone posts a screenshot of the webcam page but this cacher posted a picture of a streetlight. No way to know where the picture was taken. Those are just instance where bogus logs are discovered by accident, not by "sneaking around".

Would I report them? No. Do I look at them differently? You bet. As said before, it's all about ethics and honesty.

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment

False found logs can have a  negative impact on the game and as a cache owner it is my responsibility to delete logs I believe are bogus,  but I don't go out of my way to track these people down and expose them publicly.    I think these people are such a small part of the game that their actions are largely insignificant.     It's true,  honesty and integrity are very important.   I choose to invest my time on more important things than tracking down false loggers.

They have 40,000 finds and I have a lifetime of memories.    The real tragedy here is the time wasted (on both sides) obsessing about something that really doesn't mean very much.  

  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

They have 40,000 finds and I have a lifetime of memories.    The real tragedy here is the time wasted (on both sides) obsessing about something that really doesn't mean very much.  

That's true.

Until Mr 40,000 finds starts mud-slinging in logs / on social media / at events about YOUR caching practices.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

That's true.

Until Mr 40,000 finds starts mud-slinging in logs / on social media / at events about YOUR caching practices.

If Mr./Miss/Ms. 40,000 finds would like to discuss my caching practices face to face that's fine.  If they choose to do so indirectly,  they're not worth my time.    Anyone who's anyone in this activity knows who's who and what they're all about.  If someone chooses to believe something with only one side of the story than so be it

Indifference is one of the benefits of not having an overwhelming need to be liked. 

Link to comment

We met some cachers a while ago and while talking about caches and solving mysteries is a good winter activity they said they never solve mysteries but only go after them when they get coordinates from others. At least they were honest and I can only hope that they found the ones they log, but guess what I'm thinking whenever I see their names in (online) logs. Then think if that's the impression you want people to have from you. ;)

 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
3 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:
15 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

That's true.

Until Mr 40,000 finds starts mud-slinging in logs / on social media / at events about YOUR caching practices.

If Mr./Miss/Ms. 40,000 finds would like to discuss my caching practices face to face that's fine.

Strangely that's the one thing that never seems to happen <_<

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, on4bam said:

We met some cachers a while ago and while talking about caches and solving mysteries is a good winter activity they said they never solve mysteries but only go after them when they get coordinates from others. At least they were honest and I can only hope that they found the ones they log,

Some of them are rather proud of having succeeded in asking the coordinates from their friend. :lol:

Edited by arisoft
Link to comment
6 hours ago, colleda said:

I'm guessing this is one of those caches.

A one word Found It log for a D5/T5 and didn't bother to claim FTF?

Just writing 'wow' is really strange for a cache in Antartica. The CO seem to be inactive so that log might stand because Groundspeak can lock account but don't necessarily delete bogus log.

Groundspeak hope that each CO will delete bogus log but we all know that some of them left the game or are dead. 

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, TriciaG said:

Looking at cache logs and putting 2 and 2 together is not stalking. :rolleyes:

I do this a lot - looking at caches I've found (or not found) and watching subsequent activity - just idle curiosity, but it has turned up some interesting practices among local cachers.  But I just note the activity, and keep my opinion to myself mostly.  It's just ... interesting sometimes.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
2 hours ago, CAVinoGal said:

I do this a lot - looking at caches I've found (or not found) and watching subsequent activity - just idle curiosity, but it has turned up some interesting practices among local cachers.  But I just note the activity, and keep my opinion to myself mostly.  It's just ... interesting sometimes.

Sometimes it's useful as well as interesting to make such deductions: for instance, a few years ago I had a DNF at a D1.5 cache which the hint said was at the base of a small tree.There were no small trees within 20 paces, just some level undisturbed looking ground with well developed undergrowth. (the CO is a good cacher and takes reliable co-ord readings). I was a bit nonplussed because it had been logged online as found with no comment about the removed tree less than a week earlier. CO subsequently visited and confirmed the tree and cache had gone, obviously some time ago as the grass had grown up.

Fast forward a few months and I had a string of half a dozen DNFs on easy caches along a 7 mile circular walk, all of which had been logged online as found by that same cacher 2 days earlier. Being daft I hadn't yet put 2 and 2 together, believed the 'found it' logs, and spent a silly amount of time scrabbling around in ditches and brambles looking for caches which I now believe were not actually there. A third time I found myself accidentally following that same cachers route, I was forewarned and knew not to put any credence on their 'found it' logs .

In fact, as well as me having a few DNFs they logged finds on, I found a few where their log said something along the lines of  'Found it, but I'm not sure if I signed it as I was holding on to the dogs .'  Yeah right ! So, like me, you got across the ditch , crawled into the hawthorn hedge on the far side, pushed your way through the thorns,retrieved the cache, but then .... possibly forgot to sign it . Funnily enough, they had not signed those logs. They have logged well over 30 thousand finds, but now I know to place no trust whatsoever in their 'found it' logs as an indication of the cache stil being in place.

That's not stalking, it's making sensible deductions from the available information and personal experience in order to avoid wasted effort in the future !

 

 

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
14 hours ago, bestvue said:

Since Planetary Pursuit was instigated presumably to encourage a enhanced geocaching activity, I have become aware of a considerable number of geocaching finds that appear to be "armchair finds" As an example one paid up member recorded finds in Japan, South Korea, Indonesia, Australia, in one day (today) and yesterday recorded finds in Australia, Iceland, Christmas island, Indonesia, and Guam. The day before that in South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, Antarctica, Saudi Arabia, UAE,  I  could go on and on....

Even given the some time logging errors this seems impossible.

As our numbers increase it seems more and more are "armchair finds" I wonder what other geocachers think.

Are we policing our activity correctly indeed is Geocaching.com doing enough in this regard

Finally should we have a name and shame column or even a scan code on geocaches to verify finds.

We have a great hobby shame that some (ab)users are miss using it.

Okay, you "became aware" of people that might be faking finds.  Cool.   If you happen to feel there's really an issue, simply notify Groundspeak with their "Contact Us" at the bottom of most pages (even here).

When asked, I have an opinion, but as one who's seen how some come by those numbers, I don't think about them.  All these years, this is still a hobby for me, so how another's playing this game has little affect.  

All Cache Owners are responsible for maintenance of their caches.  This includes logs.  That's enough "policing" thanks...

I've seen posts vaporized as well as a couple posters get a "time out" for harassing ("name n shame...") others in the forums. 

A simple look how the trackable "Discover" has gone from a "find me" side-game to simply copying codes from lists shows the same thing would probably happen with log codes.   Requiring a scan code assumes everyone caches with a phone.  Most we know don't.   I don't either.   

I enjoy this hobby, and abuse (to me) is pill bottles being called small, not someone faking finds.   :)

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
6 hours ago, BulldogBlitz said:

seems like a lot of time spent online stalking.  maybe the police should get more involved in cases where online stalking was obvious and open.

Looking at someone's profile to view the information they have publicly posted is not stalking.  That's why it's there. 

If you don't want people to know you live in the 706 and not Madagascar, stop logging your finds online, hide your stats and souvenirs, and create a dummy account for your hides.

  • Upvote 6
Link to comment

I’ve thought about this topic before. Browsing the world map, there’s a cache in Northern Canada that appears to be the northernmost cache in the world. It hasn’t been found yet, except that someone did log it. People were up in arms about it and the find got deleted because that player had also logged finds in other countries on the same day. 

My thought was, the only way to be sure is to check the log. That’s why we have logs and why it’s so important to sign it! Devil’s advocate: it’s not likely, but the guy could be a world traveler and he logged the cache finds later. The only way to know for sure would be to check the log....

(the log wasn’t checked because the place is that hard to get to)

So along those lines, I think in most cases we should not get too worked up and just leave it up to the CO. 

Edited by Korichnovui
Link to comment
14 hours ago, hzoi said:

Looking at someone's profile to view the information they have publicly posted is not stalking.  That's why it's there. 

If you don't want people to know you live in the 706 and not Madagascar, stop logging your finds online, hide your stats and souvenirs, and create a dummy account for your hides.

I can't add another dummy account.  4 is too many to keep up with.  :P

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

I wonder if looking at someone's profile(s) in a bid to ascertain how many accounts they have would be classed as stalking :ph34r:

as close to a stalking target as I have been was a few years back.  someone who I had never communicated with previously saw that I was going to attend an event.  I got to the event and these two guys were sitting there that no one recognized so they were introducing themselves and asked "which one of you is bulldogblitz, we came just to talk to you"

heh...it was a question about a cache in another part of the country and they were visiting my home area (not that they drove 700 miles to meet me... but it was convenient).  they happened to be from the town where I grew up so we had much more to talk about than a single cache 100 miles from them and 600 miles from me.

Link to comment
On 4/25/2018 at 9:57 PM, bestvue said:

We have a great hobby shame that some (ab)users are miss using it.

 

I have to agree with this statement.  Unfortunately, there's a small handful of people that spoils it for the rest of us.  I don't understand the reasoning behind "armchair" finds.  In my opinion, if they're going to do that, they may as well log them all as found and move on to a different activity.

Link to comment
On ‎4‎/‎26‎/‎2018 at 9:30 PM, Korichnovui said:

I’ve thought about this topic before. Browsing the world map, there’s a cache in Northern Canada that appears to be the northernmost cache in the world. It hasn’t been found yet, except that someone did log it. People were up in arms about it and the find got deleted because that player had also logged finds in other countries on the same day. 

My thought was, the only way to be sure is to check the log. That’s why we have logs and why it’s so important to sign it! Devil’s advocate: it’s not likely, but the guy could be a world traveler and he logged the cache finds later. The only way to know for sure would be to check the log....

(the log wasn’t checked because the place is that hard to get to)

So along those lines, I think in most cases we should not get too worked up and just leave it up to the CO. 

 

Signing a log doesn't always mean the person found it. There's a well known numbers caching team that use what some call divide and conquer. That's when they split up and find caches in different areas and each signs both names.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
6 minutes ago, rustynails. said:

 

Signing a log doesn't always mean the person found it. There's a well known numbers caching team that use what some call divide and conquer. That's when they split up and find caches in different areas and each signs both names.  

I was recently out with some other cachers who I hadn't cached with before, doing a geo-art series. At one point, there were three caches down each branch of some logging roads. One of the other cachers wanted to split up and do what you described above, but I gently resisted and we all went to all of the caches. It's a good thing we did, because there was a really neat thing to see at one of the caches, and it would have been a shame if half of the group had missed out on it or half would have had to go back again.

  • Upvote 1
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...