Cacher keeps re-logging deleted log - possible to block?

January 21, 2019

A geocacher claims he has signed my log with invisible, ultraviolet ink. I have deleted his logs several times, but he keeps re-logging. Is it possible for Groundspeak to block his account so he can't log this particular cache?

3.5k · January 21, 2019

Your best bet is probably to contact GS. You can find some info HERE about "Geocacher Disagreement". At the bottom of that page, you can use the "Contact Us" option.

5k · January 21, 2019

Signing the logbook, despite which method was used, claims a valid online log. Full stop

Hans

January 21, 2019

Just now, HHL said:

Signing the logbook, despite which method was used, claims a valid online log. Full stop

Hans

Is this your personal opinion or official Groundspeak policy?

Can I sign the log with my own saliva and claim the find?

3.5k · January 21, 2019

10 minutes ago, dubidubno said:

12 minutes ago, HHL said:

Signing the logbook, despite which method was used, claims a valid online log. Full stop

Hans

Is this your personal opinion or official Groundspeak policy?

Can I sign the log with my own saliva and claim the find?

Didn't we already have an entire thread about the UV signing? https://forums.geocaching.com/GC/index.php?/topic/349598-signing-log-with-ultraviolet-marker

4.8k · January 21, 2019

HQ can’t stop the User from logging your Listing(s) per se, but they can have a talk with them, and take the opportunity to refresh their memory on the Terms of Use that they agreed to when they established their account. Depending on how the conversation goes, more drastic measures can be put to use.

Assuming they have have some sort of proof, HQ also has the ability to reinstate their log entry and lock it from further deletion.

5k · January 21, 2019

21 minutes ago, dubidubno said:

Can I sign the log with my own saliva and claim the find?

You're kidding, right? Whatever ink you use (black, blue, red, green UV): the log is valid.

NB: This is a game.

January 21, 2019

3 minutes ago, HHL said:

You're kidding, right? Whatever ink you use (black, blue, red, green UV): the log is valid.

NB: This is a game.

Is this your personal opinion or official Groundspeak policy?

5k · January 21, 2019

Just now, dubidubno said:

Is this your personal opinion or official Groundspeak policy?

It's a game, Honey. Stop your trolling behaviour please.

January 21, 2019

21 minutes ago, noncentric said:

Didn't we already have an entire thread about the UV signing? https://forums.geocaching.com/GC/index.php?/topic/349598-signing-log-with-ultraviolet-marker

Yes! He just waited until now to start deleting logs. Without asking the logger first. No, I'm not one of the loggers. But let's just say someone in this thread have made himself famous in Norway for making his own interpretations of the guidelines

4 minutes ago, HHL said:

It's a game, Honey. Stop your trolling behaviour please.

+1

January 21, 2019

1 minute ago, thomfre said:

Yes! He just waited until now to start deleting logs. Without asking the logger first. No, I'm not one of the loggers. But let's just say someone in this thread have made himself famous in Norway for making his own interpretations of the guidelines

What could the motivation of the loggers be, to sign the log in invisible ink? They must have known it would be overwritten by subsequent loggers. Also, I think it's unreasonable to expect cache owners to invest in ultraviolet light equipment. It's like an additional logging requirement in reverse.

I have asked some of the invisible ink loggers about their motivation, but they have chosen not to state.

January 21, 2019

Just now, dubidubno said:

What could the motivation of the loggers be, to sign the log in invisible ink? They must have known it would be overwritten by subsequent loggers. Also, I think it's unreasonable to expect cache owners to invest in ultraviolet light equipment. It's like an additional logging requirement in reverse.

I have asked some of the invisible ink loggers about their motivation, but they have chosen not to state.

Does it matter? What's your motivation?

January 21, 2019

10 minutes ago, thomfre said:

Does it matter? What's your motivation?

I consistently delete cheaters who claim a find without an entry in the log. I cannot verify this entry, and I suspect that they are claiming to do this to make it harder for me to stop cheaters.

4.8k · January 21, 2019

7 minutes ago, dubidubno said:

I consistently delete cheaters who claim a find without an entry in the log. I cannot verify this entry, and I suspect that they are claiming to do this to make it harder for me to stop cheaters.

If you have done your due diligence and examined the log and can’t find a signature for the User, then I would assume it falls back on them to prove it with photo evidence or some other means of verification.

10.1k · January 21, 2019

41 minutes ago, Touchstone said:

HQ can’t stop the User from logging your Listing(s) per se, but they can have a talk with them, and take the opportunity to refresh their memory on the Terms of Use that they agreed to when they established their account. Depending on how the conversation goes, more drastic measures can be put to use.

Assuming they have have some sort of proof, HQ also has the ability to reinstate their log entry and lock it from further deletion.

HQ can block a user from logging a particular cache. A cacher logged my nephew's EarthCache without answering any questions. My nephew deleted he log a few times. The cacher became quite insulting. Those e-mails were sent to HQ. And the cacher was blocked.

January 21, 2019

12 minutes ago, dubidubno said:

I consistently delete cheaters who claim a find without an entry in the log. I cannot verify this entry, and I suspect that they are claiming to do this to make it harder for me to stop cheaters.

You cannot verify because you don't have a UV light, or because you can't find the signature with a UV light?

Have you given the loggers a chance to send you additional proof? Did you care to ask any of them before you deleted?

4.4k · January 22, 2019

Make sure you have a clear photograph of the whole log, and upload it to an Owner Maintenance log and say you have checked the log. This will also be handy for HQ to see if you contact them. If I can't find a signature I usually message the logger and ask them to please point out their signature. I prefer 'message' as I have a record of the conversation. If they can't, I would say I will except a photograph or very good description of the cache AND log and accept that. Once I did miss the faint scrawl of someone's signature (but only once). If someone claimed they signed in invisible ink, that would annoy me too. I wouldn't believe them and consider them an armchair logger. A troll if they kept re-logging.

(I remember using lemon juice to sign as a child, and that was revealed by applying heat (we held it over a flame). At this time of year in the Australian bush flame would be illegal.)

1.3k · January 22, 2019

Are you doubting that they found the cache? Or just annoyed at the way they’ve logged it?

If the former - you can’t find the UV signature, and they don’t have alternative proof (photo, detailed description) - then seems fair enough to delete. I assume HQ would back you up.

If the latter, I’d say be the bigger man and let it go. Anything else will only lead to escalation, bad feeling, etc., etc. Who needs that?

3.1k · January 22, 2019

3 hours ago, dubidubno said:

Can I sign the log with my own saliva and claim the find?

Some folks on here seem to think mud, blood, or sap are acceptable alternatives when lacking a pen so saliva would seem with the realm of possibility too.

3.1k · January 22, 2019

Let's be realistic folks: a cacher stating they signed a log with invisible ink is almost certainly trolling, either as a joke or because they're a rules lawyer.

4.4k · January 22, 2019

25 minutes ago, JL_HSTRE said:

so saliva would seem with the realm of possibility too

Saliva = invisible ink. No difference. Water no difference.

4.4k · January 22, 2019

A solution could be to say you will accept the log signed in invisible ink, as long as they supply a photograph of the signature (with enough showing it is the actual log) using a u-v light. If they won't they are lying (which they probably are). But if they do come up with a signature accept it. At least that proves they have handled the actual log, even if later they Photoshop a signature.

Edited January 22, 2019 by Goldenwattle

4.5k · January 22, 2019

I can think of two reasons why someone might claim they signed a log in ultraviolet ink. They're either trying to get a smiley on a cache they didn't really find,, or they're just trying to cause aggravation.

15.4k · January 22, 2019

3 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

Some folks on here seem to think mud, blood, or sap are acceptable alternatives when lacking a pen so saliva would seem with the realm of possibility too.

If your saliva leaves marks on paper that are as visible as those left by mud, blood, sap, or ink, then you might have bigger problems than whether or not the CO allows your Find log to stand.

January 22, 2019

9 hours ago, dubidubno said:

I consistently delete cheaters who claim a find without an entry in the log. I cannot verify this entry, and I suspect that they are claiming to do this to make it harder for me to stop cheaters.

Ah, so you hate cheaters? I totally understand you but it seems that it is you who ended up in the wrong place, not the cheater. Groundspeak's game is stimulating cheating and is very welcoming to it. You have only two options: leave or accept the cheaters (eventually, becoming one of them).

January 22, 2019

9 hours ago, dubidubno said:

I think it's unreasonable to expect cache owners to invest in ultraviolet light equipment.

You make it sound like buying an UV light is a huge investment. I made a quick search on eBay for "UV light", and the second hit (of 116,941) was this one:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Mini-Aluminum-UV-Ultra-Violet-9-LED-Flashlight-Torch-Light-Lamp-Blacklight-Lamp/282520950381
This lamp should be more than good enough to read the loggers log.

I see the some of the ones believe that the logger hasn't really logged the cache. And if that just was an explanation when confronted with CO not finding his log I woul tend to agree, but he both stated it in his original log and wrote about it in his blog, why bother doing that if it wasn't true? And why make up a story that is so easy to verify? The next logger probably could have done that tf they had read his log. (I know I would...) In my experience most of the dedicated geocahcers has an UV light as a part of their standard equipment. There are so many field puzzles and multies with the need of UV out there...

January 22, 2019

Time to give a little bit of my side in this part. Yes, I am the geocacher that signed this cache with an UV-pen. Why? I wanted to. The other reasons are not something I want to take out in public.

Did I want this to be something this big? No. I was expecting the CO to check the logs, and that is also why I wrote in my online-log that I have signed with an UV-pen. So that the CO might have a chance to verify the find, as I was expecting the CO to do. For it to take nearly 5 months (since the CO started the other tread right after I submitted my online-log) was more than I counted for. Actually, I thought that I would get a message no more than a week after submitting the log. And then do the conversation in a fair matter there.

Time went until yesterday, where all of our logs where deleted. I travelled with 3 other geocachers to a mega-event in that area, and this was one of the many finds we had on May 18th last year. The CO did not say anything for a reason to delete the logs.

I submitted my log again (not happy about it since it now comes in a different order than I have logged the caches) and after a little time, that log was also deleted and once again without any reason sent to me. I now sent the CO a message asking for why he deleted my log.

The CO claims I did not sign it, and says that I just are claiming to sign with UV-pen. And ask for a reason. I do not feel obligated to answer that question, but I tell the CO that the log was signed, and that I told so in my online-log in order for the CO to be able to check it.

The CO says "I do not have the oportunity to see UV-ink" and says that I should have attached an UV-lamp the next time. Meanwhile I have logged again, and the log is deleted.

I log once again, and do tell the CO that I now have been pointed out to the thread regarding the UV-signature that was made in August, and suggest that the CO would follow some of the advices that was given in that thread. Or suggest that the CO should have contacted me before even posting that thread on this forum.

The reply are a deleted log and just a question regarding my motivation.

I do submitt a new log, and ask the motivation for the CO to delete a log that tells him that the cache is signed. I also tells the CO the place where I signed the log, and the two signatures in the logbook before me. And as a different fact, I do mention that the two nicks that are between the two signatures on the website were not on that page when we signed it, but of course, they could have signed the logbook somewhere else that that page. The storyline are April 30th - log with a signature in the logbook that I saw, May 13th - two logs which I did not see in the logbook (on that same page), May 17th - log with signature in the logbook that I saw, May 18th our signature in the logbook.

The CO then replies with deleting my log and sending me a message that says: "You are obviously just doing this for the argument. Further discussion seems meeningless. I therefore ends this conversation" The CO then starts this thread in this forum in order to get some users saying he is entitled to blocking my log.

I will have to submitt a new log later on today.

The reader (that follows me this far) will se that the CO not once have followed suggestions on how to get this matter checked in the way that would have stopped this situation from getting this much attention. And for those that thinks what I have described to the CO not proves that I have signed the cache, what is needed then? Oh wait, what about a picture of the log I did sign?

2.7k · January 22, 2019

3 hours ago, niraD said:

If your saliva leaves marks on paper that are as visible as those left by mud, blood, sap, or ink, then you might have bigger problems than whether or not the CO allows your Find log to stand.

Right after a coffee would be a good time.?

January 22, 2019

1 hour ago, Korsgat said:

Time to give a little bit of my side in this part. Yes, I am the geocacher that signed this cache with an UV-pen. Why? I wanted to. The other reasons are not something I want to take out in public.

Did I want this to be something this big? No. I was expecting the CO to check the logs, and that is also why I wrote in my online-log that I have signed with an UV-pen. So that the CO might have a chance to verify the find, as I was expecting the CO to do. For it to take nearly 5 months (since the CO started the other tread right after I submitted my online-log) was more than I counted for. Actually, I thought that I would get a message no more than a week after submitting the log. And then do the conversation in a fair matter there.

Time went until yesterday, where all of our logs where deleted. I travelled with 3 other geocachers to a mega-event in that area, and this was one of the many finds we had on May 18th last year. The CO did not say anything for a reason to delete the logs.

I submitted my log again (not happy about it since it now comes in a different order than I have logged the caches) and after a little time, that log was also deleted and once again without any reason sent to me. I now sent the CO a message asking for why he deleted my log.

The CO claims I did not sign it, and says that I just are claiming to sign with UV-pen. And ask for a reason. I do not feel obligated to answer that question, but I tell the CO that the log was signed, and that I told so in my online-log in order for the CO to be able to check it.

The CO says "I do not have the oportunity to see UV-ink" and says that I should have attached an UV-lamp the next time. Meanwhile I have logged again, and the log is deleted.

I log once again, and do tell the CO that I now have been pointed out to the thread regarding the UV-signature that was made in August, and suggest that the CO would follow some of the advices that was given in that thread. Or suggest that the CO should have contacted me before even posting that thread on this forum.

The reply are a deleted log and just a question regarding my motivation.

I do submitt a new log, and ask the motivation for the CO to delete a log that tells him that the cache is signed. I also tells the CO the place where I signed the log, and the two signatures in the logbook before me. And as a different fact, I do mention that the two nicks that are between the two signatures on the website were not on that page when we signed it, but of course, they could have signed the logbook somewhere else that that page. The storyline are April 30th - log with a signature in the logbook that I saw, May 13th - two logs which I did not see in the logbook (on that same page), May 17th - log with signature in the logbook that I saw, May 18th our signature in the logbook.

The CO then replies with deleting my log and sending me a message that says: "You are obviously just doing this for the argument. Further discussion seems meeningless. I therefore ends this conversation" The CO then starts this thread in this forum in order to get some users saying he is entitled to blocking my log.

I will have to submitt a new log later on today.

The reader (that follows me this far) will se that the CO not once have followed suggestions on how to get this matter checked in the way that would have stopped this situation from getting this much attention. And for those that thinks what I have described to the CO not proves that I have signed the cache, what is needed then? Oh wait, what about a picture of the log I did sign?

Why didn't you just attach this photo to your log or send it to me when you contacted me?

I think your plan was to provoke a deletion.

Edited January 22, 2019 by dubidubno

4.4k · January 22, 2019

1 hour ago, GorgonVaktmester said:

In my experience most of the dedicated geocahcers has an UV light as a part of their standard equipment. There are so many field puzzles and multies with the need of UV out there...

Really! I have never come across a cache that needs one, or heard of a cache that needs one. I don't have a UV light. Why should I have something that I have never needed?

4.4k · January 22, 2019

1 hour ago, Korsgat said:

I was expecting the CO to check the logs

Why should you expect the CO to make a special trip just to check one log? Sound rather selfish on your part and presumptuous. You should have supplied that photograph when you first logged and saved all this bother.

January 22, 2019

1 hour ago, Korsgat said:

This is how the logbook looks to me. As one can see, the UV log has been overwritten by subsequent cachers, because they of course could not see the UV ink.

January 22, 2019

6 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

Really! I have never come across a cache that needs one, or heard of a cache that needs one. I don't have a UV light. Why should I have something that I have never needed?

If caches that needs UV light is so rare that you make it look, why is there an attribute for caches that needs it?

https://www.geocaching.com/about/icons.aspx

January 22, 2019

This thread is hilarious! :laughing:

Often, we are wondering: Why do we have so many ~~rules~~ guidelines?

Well, we see why. Sometimes, someone starts to do something ~~stupid~~ strange, just because "he wanted to".

And here we go, thank you, Korsgat, for reason to extend rules even further.

2043378687_finda.png.8ee91035eb369653d9ad870e9fdbe985.png

#doublefacepalm

January 22, 2019

7 minutes ago, Rikitan said:

Often, we are wondering: Why do we have so many ~~rules~~ guidelines?

Well, we see why. Sometimes, someone starts to do something ~~stupid~~ strange, just because "he wanted to".

And here we go, thank you, Korsgat, for reason to extend rules even further.

It's easy to make fun of something when you don't know the whole story behind... Maybe "he wanted to" for a reason?

January 22, 2019

3 minutes ago, GorgonVaktmester said:

It's easy to make fun of something when you don't know the whole story behind... Maybe "he wanted to" for a reason?

I've seen enough above to facepalm myself several times :rolleyes: Well, people are people.

January 22, 2019

24 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

Why should you expect the CO to make a special trip just to check one log? Sound rather selfish on your part and presumptuous.

Did he say that hexepected CO to make a spescial trip? No, that's your assumption. He just said that he expected "the CO to check the logs". Isn't that quite normal?

January 22, 2019

1 minute ago, Rikitan said:

I've seen enough above to facepalm myself several times Well, people are people.

But you still know nothing about the story behind...

2.7k · January 22, 2019

29 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

Really! I have never come across a cache that needs one, or heard of a cache that needs one. I don't have a UV light. Why should I have something that I have never needed?

I have a multi that requires a UV light.

GC6470N

When I'm out caching I never carry one with me and only ever needed one once when I did a night multi during the day but managed to get by as the CO provided one at the first waypoint.

January 22, 2019

I would never sign a log with a UV pen myself, but why is it so strange when someone does it? How is that any different from signing with mud, blood, grass whatever?

The only thing that is required, is to sign the log. Korsgat did exactly that. Why use so much time and energy on someone that actually signed, when there's so many that don't sign?

January 22, 2019

1 minute ago, thomfre said:

I would never sign a log with a UV pen myself, but why is it so strange when someone does it? How is that any different from signing with mud, blood, grass whatever?

The only thing that is required, is to sign the log. Korsgat did exactly that. Why use so much time and energy on someone that actually signed, when there's so many that don't sign?

Because it leads to unecessary confusion, this thread being best example.

From now on, is it expected from CO to check logbooks with UV light?
Next finders can't see the log in logbook and their write across the previous, invisible one.

P.S. All CO's are expected to be checking their logbooks and deleting unvalid ones. Kudos to ones who take it responsibly.

January 22, 2019

2 minutes ago, thomfre said:

The only thing that is required, is to sign the log. Korsgat did exactly that. Why use so much time and energy on someone that actually signed, when there's so many that don't sign?

Exactly!!

And Korsgat was also prepared that there would be questions so he stated in his original log that ha had signed with an UV pen and he stated it in his blog from the trip. He also took a picture for when an eventual question came, but instead of asking a simple question CO just deleted the log without any comment. Is that good behaviour?

January 22, 2019

1 minute ago, Rikitan said:

Because it leads to unecessary confusion, this thread being best example.

From now on, is it expected from CO to check logbooks with UV light?

Next finders can't see the log in logbook and their write across the previous, invisible one.

P.S. All CO's are expected to be checking their logbooks and deleting unvalid ones. Kudos to ones who take it responsibly.

Long time since you read that link, Rikitan? The text is now saying:
"Monitor logs for reported problems." and "Delete logs that appear to be false or inappropriate."

Nowhere does it say that the CO have to check the physical log book to verify all finds.

If we look here: https://www.geocaching.com/help//index.php?pg=kb.chapter&id=38&pgid=204

You will also see that it says: "Email the log owner", which was not done at all here...

The confusion caused here is from this CO, who regularly have discussions like this. He won't accept team signatures, even after Groundspeak have verified that it's perfectly OK. He won't even accept two signatures that appear to be written in the same handwriting. Maybe someone needs to take a chill pill...

January 22, 2019

2 minutes ago, thomfre said:

The confusion caused here is from this CO, who regularly have discussions like this. He won't accept team signatures, even after Groundspeak have verified that it's perfectly OK. He won't even accept two signatures that appear to be written in the same handwriting. Maybe someone needs to take a chill pill...

@Rikitan: This is a part of what I meant when I said thet you don't know the story behind!

January 22, 2019

4 minutes ago, thomfre said:

"Monitor logs for reported problems." and "Delete logs that appear to be false or inappropriate."

I use to identify false logs by checking the physical logbook regularly. How do you do it?

January 22, 2019

Just now, Rikitan said:

I use to identify false logs by checking the physical logbook regularly. How do you do it?

I do what the guideline tell me to, I monitor the online cache page. The text before the guideline quote is:
"To keep the online cache page up-to-date, the cache owner must"

1.3k · January 22, 2019

2 minutes ago, GorgonVaktmester said:

@Rikitan: This is a part of what I meant when I said thet you don't know the story behind!

So signing the log in UV was done purely to be provocative? To start a (new) fight? I think both the CO and the logger need to grow up.

January 22, 2019

5 hours ago, thomfre said:

If we look here: https://www.geocaching.com/help//index.php?pg=kb.chapter&id=38&pgid=204

You will also see that it says: "Email the log owner", which was not done at all here...

I agree with this, it is polite to email the log owner first.

From discussion above I understood that Korsgat did not provided any evidence untill he posted the picture here. Pressumably, to provoke repetitive deletions.

This is what I found ~~hilarious~~ petty and vindictive.

Edited January 22, 2019 by Rikitan

5.8k · January 22, 2019

8 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

because they're a rules lawyer

I didn't think there was any other kind of lawyer. Rules are not even an implied task - it's pretty much part of the job.

Do rules lawyers work for the Department of Redundancy Department? . :anibad:

5 hours ago, niraD said:

9 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

Some folks on here seem to think mud, blood, or sap are acceptable alternatives when lacking a pen so saliva would seem with the realm of possibility too.

If your saliva leaves marks on paper that are as visible as those left by mud, blood, sap, or ink, then you might have bigger problems than whether or not the CO allows your Find log to stand.

Lenny Dykstra would have no problem signing with spit.

51LotsFUwiL._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

January 22, 2019

42 minutes ago, Rikitan said:

This thread is hilarious!

Often, we are wondering: Why do we have so many ~~rules~~ guidelines?

Well, we see why. Sometimes, someone starts to do something ~~stupid~~ strange, just because "he wanted to".

And here we go, thank you, Korsgat, for reason to extend rules even further.

#doublefacepalm

nonono, don´t be so inaccurate! The UV ink is visible. The guidelines must sate: Sign the Logbook with ink, wich can be seen in light brighter as 20lx at a wavelength 380 -780nm without using further optical enhancers or other instument and tools for a average healty person with no eyesight issues.

Maybe this is catchy enough

Edited January 22, 2019 by DerDiedler

Cacher keeps re-logging deleted log - possible to block?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment