Armchair Caching

[+The Snowdog]

Several of us noticed that an out-of-state cacher, with a very high "Found It" count, recently swept through our metro area and logged over a hundred caches - all owned by inactive COs and several of which we know are be missing. This cacher did not log a single find by an active CO.

 

What would you do?

[+Max and 99]

I would do nothing since they are not my caches.

[+barefootjeff]

Well there's always this...

 

 

Or perhaps not. There's not much else you can do though. With hindsight, perhaps this is another good reason to log NAs on caches known to be missing, particularly when the CO is known to be no longer active.

[+pingurus]

You could report the user to Groundspeak. If the case is clear, the account might be deleted, as happened once in my region.

[+Touchstone]

7 hours ago, The Snowdog said:

...several of which we know are be missing.

Sounds like some cleaning up is in order.  At the very least, starting the NA process going will discourage some of this behavior, if the individual is limiting their searches to active Listings.  In my area, once a Listing is Disabled, there doesn't appear to be much activity on the page.

[+on4bam]

A while ago I noticed "found" logs from a few people within a few days of caches being archived. Looked very much like the archiving attracted the attention. The archiving was done because of non-maintenance after NM logs and the caches were disabled. It looked like a "system".

 

 

[+BulldogBlitz]

11 hours ago, The Snowdog said:

Several of us noticed that an out-of-state cacher, with a very high "Found It" count, recently swept through our metro area and logged over a hundred caches - all owned by inactive COs and several of which we know are be missing. This cacher did not log a single find by an active CO.

 

What would you do?

 

name them in a public forum.  lay waste to their reputations. 

[+cerberus1]

12 hours ago, The Snowdog said:

Several of us noticed that an out-of-state cacher, with a very high "Found It" count, recently swept through our metro area and logged over a hundred caches - all owned by inactive COs and several of which we know are be missing. This cacher did not log a single find by an active CO.

What would you do?

 

Clever if you think about it.  Majority of times never noticed. 

Like others, we see this behavior in just-archived hides as well.  Claim to be "catching up with their logging" ...

Unless they're our caches, we don't think about them anymore.  We've seen how some come by those high numbers. 

 

 - But when one's bragging at an event (and it happens...),  especially if they're making folks uncomfortable (comparing to others), if this old fart is asked why I'm laughing, depending on mood I'll probably share.   

[+dprovan]

18 hours ago, The Snowdog said:

Several of us noticed that an out-of-state cacher, with a very high "Found It" count, recently swept through our metro area and logged over a hundred caches - all owned by inactive COs and several of which we know are be missing. This cacher did not log a single find by an active CO.

 

What would you do?

Well, to be honest, I'd probably ignore it, but it would make sense to present your evidence to Groundspeak in case they want to do anything about it. The more evidence you can present that shows (as opposed to suggests) that the logs are invalid, the better. Particularly nice would be an on-line find that you can show doesn't have a signature in the physical log. I don't know if GS will care, but if you present a fair and succinct case, at least they can't blame you for trying.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Many years ago, there was a drive through cacher who logged two of my caches in one day.  Two miles apart, but at least an hour's drive.  But no one had ever logged both on the same day.  Took me a few weeks to check the logs, and neither was signed.  It was brought up in the fora.  I suspect what did him in was logging a reviewer's cache, with no signature.  So, GS might be concerned, with enough evidence.  

[+Max and 99]

If I go sign the logs for him will that make the finds legit?

[+dprovan]

58 minutes ago, Max and 99 said:

If I go sign the logs for him will that make the finds legit?

I would say "no", but I suppose it depends on what you mean by "legit". It would certainly make them harder to repudiate.

[+L0ne.R]

On 29/05/2018 at 1:11 AM, The Snowdog said:

all owned by inactive COs and several of which we know are be missing

 

This part is the most concerning. 

 

[+Team DEMP]

On 5/29/2018 at 1:11 AM, The Snowdog said:

all owned by inactive COs and several of which we know are be missing.

 

Seems like a good place for an armchair NA  

[+The Snowdog]

It happens that one of the caches involved is owned by an inactive CO but it's still there and I have it on my "watch" list. I think I'll drop by and take a look at that log.

[+L0ne.R]

23 minutes ago, The Snowdog said:

It happens that one of the caches involved is owned by an inactive CO but it's still there and I have it on my "watch" list. I think I'll drop by and take a look at that log.

 

Since an owner isn't monitoring this cache (s/he could remove the find), getting the listing (and other abandoned listings) removed from the database will help decrease unfavorable numbers-style behavior. Start the process, alert your reviewer(s) by posting a Needs Archive log. Maybe even let the reviewer know that the abandoned listings are contributing to the problem of false finds.  

 

As a community, we can help increase the integrity of the game by using the tools provided by the GC site.