Old claims of finding geocaches

[poikää & butterfly]

  Today I have received many email notices of a geocacher claiming to find many of our hidden geocaches. Many of these hides have been archived for as much as ten years. We feel this is 'pushing' the limits of claiming a find and they may very well be just 'padding' their find count.

  This has happened before and we just ignored it as the claimed finds only went back about a year, this fellow cacher has claims going back to 2005.... at bit of time has passed! We do not remember doing any caches in 2005 ourselves!

   This cacher has claimed so far 16 finds of our hides and who knows how any others he or she has made claims on in our local area. Not that this is a big deal but the integrity 'balloon' is just about to pop!

 

P&B

[+Max and 99]

2 minutes ago, poikää & butterfly said:

  Today I have received many email notices of a geocacher claiming to find many of our hidden geocaches. Many of these hides have been archived for as much as ten years. We feel this is 'pushing' the limits of claiming a find and they may very well be just 'padding' their find count.

  This has happened before and we just ignored it as the claimed finds only went back about a year, this fellow cacher has claims going back to 2005.... at bit of time has passed! We do not remember doing any caches in 2005 ourselves!

   This cacher has claimed so far 16 finds of our hides and who knows how any others he or she has made claims on in our local area. Not that this is a big deal but the integrity 'balloon' is just about to pop!

 

P&B

I agree with you. Have they offered an explanation? Like I was a kid when I found the cache with my parents and now I'm finally getting my own account. Still, 10 years seems like a really long time!

[+barefootjeff]

There was a local cacher here who moved away and, for whatever personal reasons, created a new account in her new abode and then went through logging all her old finds under her new account. It caused a bit of headscratching at first amongst the local community until we twigged to what was happening, so it doesn't necessarily mean there's anything sinister or underhanded going on.

[poikää & butterfly]

   We do not know this person or persons....  And looking at their account they have been a member since 2013 and claiming finds back to 2005. Also they are claiming finds of other than out hides in the local area and some of those have been archived a long time.

  Now this could be a cacher who is re-logging finds under a new handle or nick. But to be sure we'll have to look at my old logs from the defunct hides and that is if we can find them!  Geocaching is meant to be fun and if this is someone's idea of fun well so be it!

 

P&B

[+IceColdUK]

Do the logs offer any explanation?

[+niraD]

We can speculate why this person is doing this, but the only person who can answer the question is the person doing it.

 

I've seen kids create their own accounts when they got old enough, and then backlog all the caches they found on their parents' shared accounts. I've seen couples split up, and then one or both of them backlogs all the caches they found together using a new individual account. I've seen people tag along with a geocaching friend for years, then create a new account and backlog all the caches found with the geocaching friend. And I've seen people armchair log caches that they're never been to.

 

So, there's lots of room for speculation. The person doing the logging is the one who can tell you what's going on.

[+Harry Dolphin]

41 minutes ago, poikää & butterfly said:

   We do not know this person or persons....  And looking at their account they have been a member since 2013 and claiming finds back to 2005. Also they are claiming finds of other than out hides in the local area and some of those have been archived a long time.

  Now this could be a cacher who is re-logging finds under a new handle or nick. But to be sure we'll have to look at my old logs from the defunct hides and that is if we can find them!  Geocaching is meant to be fun and if this is someone's idea of fun well so be it!

 

P&B

 

Well I do see the cacher who broke up with his girlfriend with a joint account.  Logs on the same date:  "Formerly logged as part of ***."  I also see the local cacher logging all the virtuals in the state.  "Cache archived because there is already one here."  "Cache archived because the CO is a banned member."  "Cache archived because the item is now missing."  Doesn't seem to stop this cacher.

[poikää & butterfly]

22 hours ago, IceColdUK said:

Do the logs offer any explanation?

    No explanation given other than a smiley face, sometimes claimed to find back in time like 2005......   UPDATE!   Yesterday he was at 80 finds and today he is up to 125 including 15 of ours.

[poikää & butterfly]

22 hours ago, Harry Dolphin said:

 

Well I do see the cacher who broke up with his girlfriend with a joint account.  Logs on the same date:  "Formerly logged as part of ***."  I also see the local cacher logging all the virtuals in the state.  "Cache archived because there is already one here."  "Cache archived because the CO is a banned member."  "Cache archived because the item is now missing."  Doesn't seem to stop this cacher.

    We will be going to check our logs to see if this cacher did find them. Not that it makes any difference and he or she is missing out on the real fun of geocaching!

 

P&B

[+Max and 99]

6 minutes ago, poikää & butterfly said:

    We will be going to check our logs to see if this cacher did find them. Not that it makes any difference and he or she is missing out on the real fun of geocaching!

 

 

 

23 hours ago, poikää & butterfly said:

  Today I have received many email notices of a geocacher claiming to find many of our hidden geocaches. Many of these hides have been archived for as much as ten years. 

 

P&B

If the caches are archived there's no log to check, or is there?

If the cache is old but active, and the physical log from ten years ago is still there, that's impressive!

[+Harry Dolphin]

7 minutes ago, Max and 99 said:

If the cache is old but active, and the physical log from ten years ago is still there, that's impressive!

 

I've got ten.

[+The A-Team]

19 minutes ago, poikää & butterfly said:

    We will be going to check our logs to see if this cacher did find them. Not that it makes any difference and he or she is missing out on the real fun of geocaching!

 

P&B

If they previously visited under a different name, then checking the logs won't help, because their new name won't be there. I agree with others that you should just ask them what they're doing. If they're relogging caches they found under a different account, they should be saying that in their log, so you could suggest that to them.

[poikää & butterfly]

2 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

 

If the caches are archived there's no log to check, or is there?

If the cache is old but active, and the physical log from ten years ago is still there, that's impressive!

   We do not know what we will find but a few of our hides are rather remote and these are basically intact.....

 

P&B

[poikää & butterfly]

1 hour ago, The A-Team said:

If they previously visited under a different name, then checking the logs won't help, because their new name won't be there. I agree with others that you should just ask them what they're doing. If they're relogging caches they found under a different account, they should be saying that in their log, so you could suggest that to them.

   That is a good idea.... We will consider doing just that

 

P&B

[+cerberus1]

18 hours ago, The A-Team said:

 I agree with others that you should just ask them what they're doing. If they're relogging caches they found under a different account, they should be saying that in their log, so you could suggest that to them.

 

Yep.

We had two cachers logging caches from '05 on ours, some archived for some time.   We mailed both and found out why.

One cached with parents (now divorced...) , and moved a few states away with one.  Now an adult, simply claiming caches found with them when here.

The other was a divorcee,  claiming finds from even before our hides, and wanted to start again for the exercise.

[poikää & butterfly]

22 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

 

Yep.

We had two cachers logging caches from '05 on ours, some archived for some time.   We mailed both and found out why.

One cached with parents (now divorced...) , and moved a few states away with one.  Now an adult, simply claiming caches found with them when here.

The other was a divorcee,  claiming finds from even before our hides, and wanted to start again for the exercise.

     That seems reasonable!

 

P&B

 

[+captnemo]

When I have questionable logs I email the cache logger and explain why I have questions.  Responses have been: a young person who now have there own account (log stands),  person checking out there past and just logging late (log stands),  Checker who logged in error (they removed the log), no response (log deleted).

[+SprinklesB]

I've always been hesitant to log old caches but I finally decided to start doing it. Because I was legit there, caching under my husband's account when we were together (since divorced). I decided I'm going to go back (to our old hometown) and try to find all the ones that aren't archieved/missing... but I did just re-log our first cache we ever found. It's GCTHH3, and I logged: "Found with volto- logging old finds when we used to cache under his name. This was the first cache we ever found! Please message me if you have any questions! Thank you :)"

 

Hopefully that'll work. Glad to find the thread on this to help me.

[+noncentric]

7 hours ago, SprinklesB said:

I've always been hesitant to log old caches but I finally decided to start doing it. Because I was legit there, caching under my husband's account when we were together (since divorced). I decided I'm going to go back (to our old hometown) and try to find all the ones that aren't archieved/missing... but I did just re-log our first cache we ever found. It's GCTHH3, and I logged: "Found with volto- logging old finds when we used to cache under his name. This was the first cache we ever found! Please message me if you have any questions! Thank you :)"

 

Hopefully that'll work. Glad to find the thread on this to help me.

Looks good.  And kudos for using the date of the original find.   ?

 

I've seen some 'catch-up' logs where loggers say something like "found this a few years ago with ABCDE" - but they use the current date, instead of the same date of ABCDE's log. Nice to see you take the extra step of adjusting the date.

[+Max and 99]

20 minutes ago, noncentric said:

Looks good.  And kudos for using the date of the original find.   ?

 

I've seen some 'catch-up' logs where loggers say something like "found this a few years ago with ABCDE" - but they use the current date, instead of the same date of ABCDE's log. Nice to see you take the extra step of adjusting the date.

noncentric said exactly what I was going to say! Using the correct date is important.  When my kids wanted their own account, I logged a cache one had found, with the correct date. The CO emailed me to ask where we found it since others logged DNFs and he himself couldn't find the cache. I pointed out the date, then he understood. I felt bad, but at least I didn't have too many years to catch up on.

[+IceColdUK]

13 hours ago, SprinklesB said:

I've always been hesitant to log old caches but I finally decided to start doing it. Because I was legit there, caching under my husband's account when we were together (since divorced). I decided I'm going to go back (to our old hometown) and try to find all the ones that aren't archieved/missing... but I did just re-log our first cache we ever found. It's GCTHH3, and I logged: "Found with volto- logging old finds when we used to cache under his name. This was the first cache we ever found! Please message me if you have any questions! Thank you :)"

 

Hopefully that'll work. Glad to find the thread on this to help me.

 

If you have access to the My Finds PQ for the old account, then GSAK can make this process very simple.  You just need to identify (e.g. user flag) which of those caches you want to re-log under the new account, and the Publish Logs function will pick up the original find date.

 

You can then apply a template (e.g. “Found with volto - logging old finds when we used to cache under his name...”), and log them all with a single click. ?

[+cal25]

I have posted logs a few days later, several days later , and one time it was a few months later. In my case I notice a county that I traveled thru did not show up on my map of found counties. If I can identify for sure the cache I found in that county, I will post my find with an explanation why the log is late. Sometimes i look at the missing county and realize I made a mistake and actually missed the county. Rite now I have a county in Idaho that I missed that is going to involve a 16 hour round trip to fix. Another is the county where Boston Mass is. I was so distracted trying to get thru Boston at rush hour that I must have forgot I needed to stop for a Geocache.

[+GPSFrodo]

 

On 10/3/2018 at 1:15 AM, Max and 99 said:

I agree with you. Have they offered an explanation? Like I was a kid when I found the cache with my parents and now I'm finally getting my own account. Still, 10 years seems like a really long time!

I've been "cache-dormant" for almost 15 years. When I started up cache hunting again, I realised that I had about 100 or so finds I did not log (from old diary entries).  The thought never even crossed my mind to "back log" these find. I think logging old finds are a bit uhhhmmm ... dubious.

[+IceColdUK]

18 minutes ago, GPSFrodo said:

 

I've been "cache-dormant" for almost 15 years. When I started up cache hunting again, I realised that I had about 100 or so finds I did not log (from old diary entries).  The thought never even crossed my mind to "back log" these find. I think logging old finds are a bit uhhhmmm ... dubious.

 

I think the splitting account scenario  seems reasonable enough, regardless of how long after the caches were found.  (Ideally each of the new logs should correspond to and reference an existing log.)

 

But, I agree, simply logging caches 15 years late might look a little suspicious!

[+cerberus1]

11 minutes ago, GPSFrodo said:

I've been "cache-dormant" for almost 15 years. When I started up cache hunting again, I realised that I had about 100 or so finds I did not log (from old diary entries).  The thought never even crossed my mind to "back log" these find. I think logging old finds are a bit uhhhmmm ... dubious.

 

Well, fifteen years dormant is different enough to seem ...dubious.         

Finding a logbook that's still there since'05 or so rare too.  

 

Most we're aware of "back logging" had finds already on the cache page under their prior name. 

We know a few couples who divorced after ten years, lots of kids who just got too old to be having mommy n daddy doing their logging. 

The fact that they were known by most probably helped.  

[+dprovan]

1 hour ago, IceColdUK said:

I think the splitting account scenario  seems reasonable enough, regardless of how long after the caches were found.  (Ideally each of the new logs should correspond to and reference an existing log.)

 

But, I agree, simply logging caches 15 years late might look a little suspicious!

I feel exactly the reverse. I understand someone realizing "somewhat late" that they forgot to log some caches, so I would blink at a log like that. In fact, at 15 years, it's bound to be an interesting log explaining the delay if I ever happened to see it. Of course, I expect an explanation, so I don't expect it to look suspicious.

 

On the other hand, I've never really understood the need to split an account. If I were in a geocaching team that split up, I'd view the team as a distinct identity from me as an individual, so I'd just start over using a new account. I guess I don't care enough about The Numbers, so it doesn't scare me to start back at zero. Oh, I don't mind if someone decides to relog caches found on a team account, but I do ask them to take into account how boring and pointless all those identical logs are going to be to anyone monitoring the area.

[+niraD]

1 hour ago, dprovan said:

Of course, I expect an explanation, so I don't expect it to look suspicious.

There's the key. If you're logging especially late, then you really should include an explanation, whatever the reason for the late logging is. Copy-pasting the reason into all your late logs shouldn't be difficult.

• I got a few months behind with my logs. Now I'm finally getting caught up.
• I've been caching with my parents as long as I can remember. I just turned 13 so now I'm logging with my own account.
• I discovered that my geocaching app wasn't posting my logs to the web site, so now I'm finally doing that.
• At an event last week, some guy screamed at my wife and me for sharing a single account. We still don't think anything's wrong with that, but here's a second account anyway. Now I'm relogging everything.

[+noncentric]

My Drafts list tends to get a bit long before I get around to submitting logs.  I'm more timely with posting DNF/NM/OM logs, but Found It logs usually don't get posted for days/weeks. I always use the actual date that I found the cache, not the date I submit the log. I haven't had any CO's question me about my late logging - yet.

 

 

3 hours ago, dprovan said:

On the other hand, I've never really understood the need to split an account. If I were in a geocaching team that split up, I'd view the team as a distinct identity from me as an individual, so I'd just start over using a new account. I guess I don't care enough about The Numbers, so it doesn't scare me to start back at zero.

I wouldn't see the split team scenario as being about "the numbers" - but more about wanting to identify which caches on the map have not been found yet.  There have been a couple of caches that I plain forgot to log, so I understand the feeling of going to the location of an unfound cache icon and realizing "I've been here before and the cache is in the same place I found it before".  That is boring.  If someone used a team account and is now no longer part of the team, then re-logging would allow them to better filter which caches they've already found. Of course, people that think "team accounts" are lame might make the argument that they probably didn't "really find" the caches on their team account, but that's a different argument.

 

 

[+IceColdUK]

14 hours ago, dprovan said:

I guess I don't care enough about The Numbers, so it doesn't scare me to start back at zero.

 

I suppose I do care about “The Numbers” - not so much quantitatively, but qualitatively.  I like accuracy.  I like being able to see where I’ve been, and which caches I’ve found.  I wouldn’t want to wipe that slate clean.

 

When I started, mine was the only account for the IceCold Crew - i.e. me, my better half, and my youngest son.

 

After just a few months of caching, my son wanted to start writing his own logs, so we created an account for him.  He was keen (at the time!) to back-log all of the caches he’d found with me.  The enthusiasm of youth!

 

For almost six years, the missus’s finds were simply a subset of mine, and logging under the one account was fine.  The moment she found one without me, I had to ‘set her free’ - I just couldn’t bring myself to log a find on a cache that I’d never seen, so IceColdToo was born!  I still do the logging for both accounts, and to be truthful, had I not back-logged her finds, she really wouldn’t have cared - it was far more for my benefit than hers.

 

15 hours ago, dprovan said:

I do ask them to take into account how boring and pointless all those identical logs are going to be to anyone monitoring the area.

 

I can see how, say, a CO of a large series might be disappointed at receiving however-many identical emails for way back re-logged finds, but I don’t really see the downside for anybody else.  Unless it’s the content (i.e. lack of useful content) of those logs.  (This is probably a separate discussion, but I’m afraid the new logs I write on behalf of my wife now, aren’t that different to the ones I back-logged when her account was created.)

[+cerberus1]

23 hours ago, dprovan said:

 I guess I don't care enough about The Numbers, so it doesn't scare me to start back at zero.

8 hours ago, IceColdUK said:

 I like accuracy.  I like being able to see where I’ve been, and which caches I’ve found.  I wouldn’t want to wipe that slate clean.

 

I don't care what my "numbers" are.  Similar to IceCold,  but the only reason I log a find is to remove it from the system.

 - Though I'd bet most folks have found  a "new" cache at the exact same location of an old find.  

The site doesn't yet have a way to remove caches found without a "point", so "starting from scratch" would mean finding all those caches all over again.  

 

[+dprovan]

13 hours ago, IceColdUK said:

I can see how, say, a CO of a large series might be disappointed at receiving however-many identical emails for way back re-logged finds, but I don’t really see the downside for anybody else.

I don't see the relevance of "large series". A CO of any cache is going to find the "found as OldTeamName, now splitting account" boring no matter how many caches of what kind they have. And anyone, CO or not, monitoring an area will similarly find the flood of pointless logs uninteresting. Beyond mail, anyone looking at the logs for an area soon after the split will find those vacuous logs on every single cache. That's a downside. And that's assuming the logs are actually dated according to the original find, but usually they're dated on the date of the split, hence leading to find logs on caches that are missing.

[+dprovan]

5 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

The site doesn't yet have a way to remove caches found without a "point", so "starting from scratch" would mean finding all those caches all over again.

I guess I'd have to be in that situation to understand. In my imagination, either I remember I've cached that area and don't go there again, or I don't remember I cached that area and have as much fun as I did the first time finding those caches and signing the log with my new handle.

[+IceColdUK]

7 hours ago, dprovan said:

I don't see the relevance of "large series". A CO of any cache is going to find the "found as OldTeamName, now splitting account" boring no matter how many caches of what kind they have.

 

I assumed it was the repetitiveness that you found boring, and I was trying (badly!) to imply that it was the ‘most found’ COs that would have the most reason for complaint.  If a single such log is enough to upset you, then fair enough.

 

7 hours ago, dprovan said:

And anyone, CO or not, monitoring an area will similarly find the flood of pointless logs uninteresting.

 

I can go with ‘uninteresting’, but I’d argue with ‘pointless’.  I’d also say, that if for some reason you are monitoring a large number of caches, then these won’t be the only ‘uninteresting’ logs you’ll see!

 

7 hours ago, dprovan said:

Beyond mail, anyone looking at the logs for an area soon after the split will find those vacuous logs on every single cache. That's a downside. And that's assuming the logs are actually dated according to the original find, but usually they're dated on the date of the split, hence leading to find logs on caches that are missing.

 

If they’re logged properly, with the correct ‘way-back’ dates, then surely they won’t affect cachers looking back through recent logs?  Logged incorrectly, I agree, they can cause confusion (as can any incorrectly logged find).

[+IceColdUK]

On 4/29/2019 at 6:58 PM, dprovan said:

I do ask them to take into account how boring and pointless all those identical logs are going to be to anyone monitoring the area.

 

I have no reason to split my account any further, but if I were asked about back-logging finds: I still wouldn’t advise against it, but I would now recommend including an acknowledgement of the impact...

 

”Found as part of team XXX, now logging under my own account.  Apologies for any unwanted notifications!  TFTC.”

[+Goldenwattle]

On 10/4/2018 at 8:51 AM, Max and 99 said:

 

If the caches are archived there's no log to check, or is there? 

If the cache is old but active, and the physical log from ten years ago is still there, that's impressive!

In my case there would be for all except maybe the last logs, as I photograph the logs and put them in my OM logs.

[+Max and 99]

11 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

In my case there would be for all except maybe the last logs, as I photograph the logs and put them in my OM logs.

A great idea!

[+dprovan]

13 hours ago, IceColdUK said:

I can go with ‘uninteresting’, but I’d argue with ‘pointless’.  I’d also say, that if for some reason you are monitoring a large number of caches, then these won’t be the only ‘uninteresting’ logs you’ll see!

What I mean by pointless is that the logs have nothing to do with the cache in question. They're are all about that person. I'm monitoring -- or own -- the cache. I could care less if Frank has divorced Frank&Earnest, so I find the log "Relogging under my new account" boring, whether it's one or a hundred.

 

13 hours ago, IceColdUK said:

If they’re logged properly, with the correct ‘way-back’ dates, then surely they won’t affect cachers looking back through recent logs?

That's what I said.

 

13 hours ago, IceColdUK said:

”Found as part of team XXX, now logging under my own account.  Apologies for any unwanted notifications!  TFTC.”

Uh-oh. Hoisted by my own petard! ”Found as part of team XXX, now logging under my own account.  Apologies for any unwanted notifications!  Unless you think unwanted notifications are OK as long as they're very short, in which case I apologize for apologizing for this notification. Thanks again for the cache I thanked you for 10 years ago even though I don't remember anything about finding it.”

 

Seriously, I don't want anyone to apologize for anything. I don't care about useless logs, I just think people splitting accounts like this don't consider the fact that it has almost no value to them, yet ends up flooding messages to everywhere they've ever geocached with the news that this account, which those people never cared about to begin with, is now split. As long as they stop to think about it, and consider whether it's really important not to find a cache for a second time, then I'll accept their decision.

[+niraD]

2 hours ago, dprovan said:

I just think people splitting accounts like this don't consider the fact that it has almost no value to them

Says who? If someone is going to the trouble to manually post backdated logs for caches that they found previously, then they must find some value in it.

[+IceColdUK]

32 minutes ago, niraD said:

Says who? If someone is going to the trouble to manually post backdated logs for caches that they found previously, then they must find some value in it.

 

E.g. qualification for challenges.