Can reviewer archive a cache (and delete all logs) if nothing requiring maintenance happened?

[hsiale]

I am deliberately not posting cache number so that the reviewer in question cannot be identified. Witch hunts are bad. Let's look at the following situation:

 

A cache gets published. It is a multi, with several virtual stages (solvable via Google Street View and other ways of online research) where you answer questions that give you coordinates for the final, physical stage. That stage is several hundred kilometers from the starting coordinates, in another country.

 

For a while, nothing happens (people close to starting coordinates have no way to travel that far, people close to the final have no idea about the existence of the cache). But finally, by word of mouth, knowledge spreads to people living within driving distance of the final, some of them solve the tasks (of course virtually) and then drive to the final, find it and sign the logbook. Then they log the find on the website (some of them adding pictures of the logbook or photos from GZ, which is nothing special, a random place in the forest, so no spoilers involved).

 

After two weeks from publishing, for some reason, the reviewer has a change of heart and, despite the container being in the terrain and in perfect condition, he:

• archives the cache
• deletes every single "Found it" from the page (and comes back after some time to delete a few more posted later)
• in the "Archive" entry openly accuses cachers who found it of armchair logging.

 

What do you think about this situation? Should the cache be published at all (I was quite surprised seeing it, but expected it to end up at "caches not counted for statistics" list one day). Can a reviewer archive a cache just because they no longer like it? Is it allowed for the reviewer to delete logs of people who signed the physical logbook left by the CO? If the decision to archive is correct, who is responsible for picking up the container so that no geotrash is left in the forest?

Edited October 6, 2023 by hsiale

[+Jayeffel]

as in most cases the reviewer probably stated the reasons.

[+Max and 99]

I think multicaches set up that way are just inviting problems.

If the physical log book is signed I don't understand why the online log would be deleted? 

 

[+niraD]

With the caveat that I am hearing only one side of this story...

 

51 minutes ago, hsiale said:

What do you think about this situation? Should the cache be published at all (I was quite surprised seeing it, but expected it to end up at "caches not counted for statistics" list one day).

AFAIK, there is still no limit to the distance between a multi-cache final and the first stage (posted coordinates). I've seen pairs of multi-caches where the first stage of one and the final of the other are located in one country, and the final of one and the first stage of the other are located in another country ("exchange caches" where teams in different countries exchange coordinates for the final locations in their own countries). This has been fine for years.

 

But there are no precedents for placing geocaches.

 

56 minutes ago, hsiale said:

Can a reviewer archive a cache just because they no longer like it?

I've been told by multiple volunteer reviewers that they don't approve caches. They publish caches. And they publish plenty of caches they don't approve of (or like) because those caches meet the guidelines.

 

The question is whether it meets the guidelines. Maybe there has been a discussion between Groundspeak and the volunteer reviewer community about such long-distance multi-caches. I wouldn't know since I'm not a volunteer reviewer, and I don't even play one on TV.

 

56 minutes ago, hsiale said:

Is it allowed for the reviewer to delete logs of people who signed the physical logbook left by the CO?

That seems wrong, based on what I've seen before. I know frustrated owners of multi-caches who were told that they could not delete the online logs of cachers who got the final coordinates online an just went to the final, skipping the rest of the multi-cache. Researching the virtual waypoints of a multi-cache online is essentially the same thing, except the finder is actually doing the work of determining the final coordinates.

 

56 minutes ago, hsiale said:

If the decision to archive is correct, who is responsible for picking up the container so that no geotrash is left in the forest?

As always, the CO is responsible for collecting geotrash after a cache is archived.

 

Personally, if I had evidence that my Find log was legitimate (a photo of the log taken by me or by someone else), then I'd appeal to Groundspeak to have my Find log reinstated. I wouldn't kvetch about it in the forums.

[+Oxford Stone]

I have a multi that starts in Paris and ends in London - in the early days I had some Parisians accusing me of breaking the rules (the didn't realise that icon-GZ distance is not limited on multis) and then a handful got it logged by a pal in their determination to have found all the caches "in Paris". I let them go. Otherwise no issues beyond those that any cache might experience. The above seems a strange one, though.

[+thebruce0]

I have no question about whether the cache could be archived, as that's a reason the reviewer would know. To me the big question is why all the find logs were deleted. Unless there was something nefarious or coordinated going on with the finders, if they're a bunch of essentially unconnected and unrelated geocachers whose names are in the logbook (supposedly), then that seems wrong; can't think of a (publicly known) reasoning why that might happen... but the reviewer's under no obligation to explain why either.

[+Mausebiber]

Maybe the online log entries were offended, inappropriate or otherwise not according to the ethics of Groundspeak.

 

[+MartyBartfast]

I have seen similar where a cache was Redacted (i.e. deleted) because it didn't have landowner approval, and I believe redacting the cache would also delete all the logs, but that doesn't seem to be what happened here.

 

In my opinion the reviewer shouldn't be policing logs for validity or armchair logging, so if I had found it and had evidence I would appeal to Groundspeak to have the find reinstated.

 

It sounds like the reviewer is overstepping their authority here.

[+JL_HSTRE]

Not providing a GC# = OP doesn't want pesky facts to inferior with their perceived victimization.

 

OP contradicts themselves. "For a while, nothing happens." Then "After two weeks from publishing..." the archiving happens. You think a Multicache going unfound during the first week after publication is "awhile"?

 

OP's story is very fishy because Reviewers don't delete logs, especially not for armchair logging. That's mostly up to the CO. Groundspeak HQ will sometimes delete logs for inappropriate content or because the logging behavior of an account is clearly fraudulent and that entire user account gets nuked.
 

A listing sometimes gets retracted because there was some issue involving accidental publication or some serious but initially overlooked issue that should have prevented publication. However, to my knowledge, only caches without logs get Retracted. If the cache had logs then the listing would normally be Archived and Locked instead.

 

Though I must admit the idea of a "honey pot" cache that is known to be fake and is difficult enough too deter legitimate cachers while enticing enough to attract armchair loggers is an interesting idea for a Groundspeak sting operation. 

 

Edited October 6, 2023 by JL_HSTRE

[+baer2006]

The simple answer to the topical question is: Yes, they can.

 

However, for such a radical measure, they probably need the support of HQ, but in this case I guess they have this support. It wasn't super difficult to find the cache listing in question, especially since I already had a strong suspicion in which direction this was going. The reviewer objects to the fact, that the multi was built for the sole purpose{*} to offer cachers in the final's country a (comparatively) easy opportunity to acquire a stat point for a country, which is not so convenient to visit. And I know for a fact, that GS doesn't like this kind of shenanigans.

 

{*} This is blatantly obvious once you see the listing and start to "solve" the multi.

[hsiale]

1 hour ago, Jayeffel said:

as in most cases the reviewer probably stated the reasons.

The "Archive" entry on the cache page only says something like "Nice logs, getting new countries to statistics from your couch"

 

Cachers who had their logs removed only got a standard automatic email from Geocaching.

 

I don't know the CO so I have no idea if they got any additional message.

46 minutes ago, niraD said:

The question is whether it meets the guidelines. Maybe there has been a discussion between Groundspeak and the volunteer reviewer community about such long-distance multi-caches. I wouldn't know since I'm not a volunteer reviewer, and I don't even play one on TV.

(...)

Personally, if I had evidence that my Find log was legitimate (a photo of the log taken by me or by someone else), then I'd appeal to Groundspeak to have my Find log reinstated. I wouldn't kvetch about it in the forums.

If it turned out that the cache did not meet the guidelines, would be nice if the archiving message said something about this, instead of commenting on finders and reviewers dissatisfaction with the way they found the cache. I know at least some of the people who logged it have written to HQ. As my involvement in geocaching is mostly as a CO, I am interested in community opinions as well, I can ask my local reviewer about guidelines, but talking just to him won't tell me what kind of caches people actually enjoy, various edge cases are interesting to discuss publicly.

21 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

if they're a bunch of essentially unconnected and unrelated geocachers whose names are in the logbook (supposedly), then that seems wrong; can't think of a (publicly known) reasoning why that might happen... but the reviewer's under no obligation to explain why either.

Well, most of them know each other from attending local events and sometimes caching together.

 

The cache was highlighted in our local geocaching chat on WhatsApp. Several people solved it independently (it was quite easy so nobody even bothered asking others for solution, 5 minutes of browsing Street View). Then one guy went to get the FTF about a week ago. When I was there on Friday, I saw his signature in the logbook and one more, of somebody I don't know. Then the logbook was signed by my GF who was with me and wanted to log this cache. Then during the weekend 5 more people got together in a car and went there, they posted a photo from GZ which I recognized as the same place. While obviously nobody went to the starting coordinates, also nobody claimed to have done so, they went to the final, signed the paper logbook (which most likely is still there) and logged a find.

14 minutes ago, Mausebiber said:

Maybe the online log entries were offended, inappropriate or otherwise not according to the ethics of Groundspeak.

 

Nothing of this sort regular dull log entries with TFTC included.

[+baer2006]

20 minutes ago, baer2006 said:

The reviewer objects to the fact, that the multi was built for the sole purpose{*} to offer cachers in the final's country a (comparatively) easy opportunity to acquire a stat point for a country, which is not so convenient to visit.

... and the CO has created other similar caches, for other countries, as well. Wonder, how long these will last .

[hsiale]

25 minutes ago, JL_HSTRE said:

Not providing a GC# = OP doesn't want pesky facts to inferior with their perceived victimization.

 

LMAO did you consider a career as a cop? You sound like you could be just perfect for this. I am happy to provide you with GC number via PM so you can do your investigation.

Quote

"For a while, nothing happens." Then "After two weeks from publishing..." the archiving happens. You think a Multicache going unfound during the first week after publication is "awhile"?

In my area it is very long time and only happened because the starting coordinates were too far to send a notification to local cachers. We have several active FTF hunters and any cache very rarely goes over 24 hours without a first find (quite often FTF happens within an hour or two), it needs to be very difficult to last longer. Once somebody found out and posted this as a curiosity in local chat group, FTF was taken on the same day.

Quote

Reviewers don't delete logs, especially not for armchair logging. That's mostly up to the CO

The automatic message that arrived from Geocaching said "Your log has been removed from [Cache name] by [Reviewer name]". CO was not mentioned anywhere.

[hsiale]

36 minutes ago, baer2006 said:

easy opportunity to acquire a stat point for a country, which is not so convenient to visit. And I know for a fact, that GS doesn't like this kind of shenanigans.

Any source on this in the guidelines, or just some "trust me bro" rumours? And, if it is against the guidelines, why do you think the caches have been published, and why other similar caches, published by the same CO at similar time (with only difference being another reviewer), which you found with no problems so reviewers & HQ should also know about them, are not touched at all?

 

When I saw this publication, I fully expected it to sooner or later end up on this list: https://www.geocaching.com/plan/lists/BMAFMJR which would fix the issue of statistics. But I definitely don't get why would people who solved the task in the published listing, made the trip to final coordinates and signed the paper logbook would have their log entry removed after the fact with no explanation on what rule they (or the CO) have broken.

[+thebruce0]

19 minutes ago, MartyBartfast said:

Given what @baer2006 has written it does seem like this cache (and others) was deliberately placed to allow people to gain finds in other countries without leaving their own, which is against the spirit of the game so the reviewer's actions are fine and probably had HQ support.

 

Deleting find logs though? If they found the container, signed the sheet, and logged the find, that is - by HQ's own definition - sufficient to lock in the find for the cache, regardless of the nature of the cache or opinions. So, either there's more here than merely archiving a cheeky cache and deleting valid find logs (such as perhaps someone else signed the names on the logs for everyone who logged it found?), or the reviewer went too far in deleting the logs.  I've never seen a reviewer delete legitimate find logs merely because they didn't like the reason for which the cache was published (even if the cache deserved archival).  Reviewers recommend COs not to delete logs of people who legitimately found a throwdown... HQ will reinstate logs of people who've had them deleted despite signing the logsheet... this action here seems to go against everything HQ promotes. So, there must be something else at play that invalidated all the find logs, or the reviewer went too far.

Edited October 6, 2023 by thebruce0

[+baer2006]

1 minute ago, hsiale said:

Any source on this in the guidelines, or just some "trust me bro" rumours? And, if it is against the guidelines, why do you think the caches have been published, and why other similar caches, published by the same CO at similar time (with only difference being another reviewer), which you found with no problems so reviewers & HQ should also know about them, are not touched at all?

There is nothing about this in the public guidelines. However, from first-hand talks with local reviewers I know that they also have "internal guidelines", so that sometimes caches are not published (or archived shortly after publication), which don't violate any open guidelines.

As for the "final in another country" thing: Several years ago, some buddies and I also built a multi of this kind. Other than the caches in point here, we spent some effort to make it hard to solve from home. Anyway, the cache gut published after lots of discussions, but I know (also directly from local reviewers) that it created quite a stir at HQ, and they were not really amused about it.

[+JL_HSTRE]

Personally, I think all stages of a cache should be in the same country. I'm sure there are creative and thematic reasons supporting a multi-country multi-stage cache. In understand the Guidelines allow it. I just think they cause more trouble than they're worth.

[+JL_HSTRE]

1 hour ago, hsiale said:

LMAO did you consider a career as a cop? You sound like you could be just perfect for this. I am happy to provide you with GC number via PM so you can do your investigation.

 

Go right ahead. Then I will immediately post it in this thread so that the truth can be revealed.

 

I've been on these forums long enough to know pretty much every time someone posts a "this poor cache has been treated so unfairly" that a Reviewer or Lackey comes by and reveals the rest of the story that the OP didn't know or was deliberately hiding.

[hsiale]

5 minutes ago, JL_HSTRE said:

 

Go right ahead. Then I will immediately post it in this thread so that the truth can be revealed.

 

I've been on these forums long enough to know pretty much every time someone posts a "this poor cache has been treated so unfairly" that a Reviewer or Lackey comes by and reveals the rest of the story that the OP didn't know or was deliberately hiding.

PM sent. Waiting for the great revelation and explanation of everything my small brain has failed to comprehend.

[+baer2006]

Oh, well ... I'll just post the GC code. In the worst case, it will be removed by a moderator, and I'll get a message not to do it again.

 

So, GCA5WGK is one of two listings, which were archived and had their logs deleted.

[+JL_HSTRE]

The two caches in question:

https://coord.info/GCABR07 (Romania)

https://coord.info/GCA5WGK (Moldova)

 

The first thing that jumps out to me about the Romania cache: why does a cache have description written only in English? It's strange to me for any cache to be placed in any country without having the description in the native language. The Moldova cache at least has the description partly in non-English.

 

The Moldova archive log hints at the reason more than the Romania archive log: "great mistake from my part to publish the 'series' from the first placed. Now corrected"

 

Three other hides by the CO (published by other Reviewers) use the same style and background image as the two archived caches:

https://coord.info/GCA5T1J
https://coord.info/GCABQZT
https://coord.info/GCA5R50

 

The CO has hides in Finland, Slovenia, Ukraine, Belarus, and Cabo Verde (Cape Verde Islands). Except for the Verde cache published in January, all the other hides are non-Traditionals published during the last 6 six weeks. The CO doesn't have any home location listed on their profile. One fellow in Germany has logged about finding each of the three caches using his "magic carpet" and the loggers of these three caches are all pretty much the same. I wonder where the finals are actually located? All on a power trail in the same country perhaps?

 

This all smells very fishy to me.

[+baer2006]

28 minutes ago, JL_HSTRE said:

All on a power trail in the same country perhaps?

The finals are all in Poland. Not on a trail, but in the same general area (easily doable in one day on a road trip).

[+Hügh]

I am struck by the tone of the Archive log. It's certainly intended to be teasing, but I can see how that might get interpreted as a Reviewer overstepping a line. Probably "This cache should not have been published." would have sufficed.

 

44 minutes ago, JL_HSTRE said:

I wonder where the finals are actually located? All on a power trail in the same country perhaps?

 

I did some magic-carpet-ing of my own, and it would appear these all end up in central Poland.

Edited October 6, 2023 by Hügh

[+colleda]

I'm a little curious of the D/T ratings.

[hsiale]

On 10/6/2023 at 3:48 PM, JL_HSTRE said:

the rest of the story that the OP didn't know or was deliberately hiding.

Sorry for not getting back to you earlier, was quite busy over the weekend. At least you had plenty of time to investigate. So, could you now tell everyone what is the reason for "Found it" logs getting removed from those caches by a reviewer who most likely lives a lot further away from GZ than any of the finders?

[hsiale]

On 10/6/2023 at 6:05 PM, Hügh said:

I am struck by the tone of the Archive log. It's certainly intended to be teasing, but I can see how that might get interpreted as a Reviewer overstepping a line. Probably "This cache should not have been published." would have sufficed.

Maybe it could be interpreted as teasing if it was not followed by removal of every single "Found it" from the cache without even posting a photo of an empty logbook (which should be easy to get if those people indeed did not find the cache and it was verified at GZ).

Edited October 9, 2023 by hsiale

[+JL_HSTRE]

47 minutes ago, hsiale said:

Sorry for not getting back to you earlier, was quite busy over the weekend. At least you had plenty of time to investigate. So, could you now tell everyone what is the reason for "Found it" logs getting removed from those caches by a reviewer who most likely lives a lot further away from GZ than any of the finders?

 

All signs point to a series of caches "located" in the countries surrounding Poland with the finals in Poland, intended to get a bunch of high D/T hides in other countries for some kind of stats boost without having to physically leave Poland. Maybe Challenge qualifications? Doesn't really matter.

 

Zero sympathy. The COs other hides should be Unpublished and they should be banned from hiding caches.

 

We haven't had any comments from Groundspeak on the subject.

 

Edited October 9, 2023 by JL_HSTRE

[hsiale]

1 minute ago, JL_HSTRE said:

The COs other hides should be Unpublished and they should be banned from hiding caches.

Do you have anything in guidelines backing this, or just a personal opinion?

 

Also, no idea why you answer a question about finders by talking about the CO.

[+baer2006]

3 hours ago, hsiale said:

So, could you now tell everyone what is the reason for "Found it" logs getting removed from those caches by a reviewer who most likely lives a lot further away from GZ than any of the finders?

Because the caches were obviously created for the single purpose to give the finders country stats without actually visiting that country. That's just plain cheating, and personally I'm quite pleased to see that in this case, a reviewer stepped up and said "No, you don't get this country stat that way!"

 

If you don't like that, file an appeal with GS to have your log reinstated.

[+niraD]

19 minutes ago, baer2006 said:

Because the caches were obviously created for the single purpose to give the finders country stats without actually visiting that country.

So what? Caches are created for the single purpose of padding finders' stats all the time.

 

The questions are whether the cache meets the guidelines, and whether the finders actually found the cache and signed the log.

[hsiale]

1 hour ago, baer2006 said:

That's just plain cheating

Do you have anything in guidelines backing this, or just a personal opinion?

Quote

file an appeal with GS to have your log reinstated.

As far as I know, at least most of the finders have done this or plan to do this. Once I hear from them on the resolution, I will ask them for permission to share what happened.

[+baer2006]

47 minutes ago, hsiale said:

1 hour ago, baer2006 said:

That's just plain cheating

Do you have anything in guidelines backing this, or just a personal opinion?

I don't need guidelines to tell that placing a cache in Poland but listing it in Moldova is cheating for the purpose of boosting country stats. Same as listing a film canister under a lamp post as D5/T5 is cheating for boosting D/T stats. _Usually_ this goes unchallenged by GS and reviewers, but that doesn't make it right.

 

And BTW, and slightly off-topic: Many cachers always say "But there's no guideline against that!!!!" when it comes to justifying stat padding like this. But when it comes to throwdowns, "photo logs" and other find logs when the cache wasn't found/signed (all of which is explicitly invalid according to the guidelines), they say "It's just guidelines, it's only a game, it should be fun for everyone". So, stand firm to the guidelines as long as they support (or at least don't explicitly forbid) cheating, but drop them as soon as the find stats are in danger??

Edited October 9, 2023 by baer2006
Typo

[+cerberus1]

4 hours ago, baer2006 said:

I don't need guidelines to tell that placing a cache in Poland but listing it in Moldova is cheating for the purpose of boosting country stats.

 

Is this similar to some "exchange" caches often seen in all nations, where some simply log each other's new cache for the country?

IIRC, a few of them were being looked at too...

[+JL_HSTRE]

12 hours ago, hsiale said:

Also, no idea why you answer a question about finders by talking about the CO.

 

I have no sympathy for them either. They knew what they were doing. I expect at least some were in a cahoots with the CO.

 

So keep hiding behind you 0 Finds sock puppet while the world's smallest violin plays just for you.

[hsiale]

6 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

0 Finds sock puppet

That's quite an effort to create a sock puppet over a year in advance and give it 10 hides with 30%-ish FP rate. Keep going, armchair detective.

[hsiale]

15 hours ago, baer2006 said:

I don't need guidelines to tell that placing a cache in Poland but listing it in Moldova is cheating

If it is so obvious, then why did an experienced reviewer publish the cache and only changed their mind after two weeks? Why did another reviewer, also experienced, publish 3 more similar caches by same CO and those listings are alive until now? If it was clear, all of those would surely be thrown away during review and never published.

 

I also have some opinions which do not have any backing in guidelines, for example I hate it when people find my caches without solving the puzzle if there is one. But I do not delete logs where I am sure that they got final coordinates from someone else or found the cache by accident and only went to sign the logbook, exactly because the guidelines say that "ink on paper = valid find". One of my caches is a mystery near a place where there was a mega event in August, over that weekend it received about 100 logs and I'm quite sure that at most 10-15 of those people solved this properly, but they were signed in the logbook so I did not touch their finds.

[+baer2006]

1 hour ago, hsiale said:

That's quite an effort to create a sock puppet over a year in advance and give it 10 hides with 30%-ish FP rate. Keep going, armchair detective.

Nice try to build some little straw men to distract from the fact that you are not posting under your player name here, and therefore, as @JL_HSTRE pointed out, are "hiding behind a sock puppet".

[hsiale]

3 hours ago, baer2006 said:

you are not posting under your player name here

Well, I am posting under my player name. If you have trouble believing this, feel free to verify with my local reviewer, who knows me in person. Is your 1500 finds a year making it impossible to think that there are people who are interested only in creative side of the hobby and feel zero need to log caches and hoard points?

 

Exactly for the same reason, as a hider-only geocacher, I am interested in various edge cases within guidelines. This is the first time I've seen logs being deleted without verification of paper logbook, so I started this thread hoping to see some similar examples from history of geocaching (which I don't know much of having started in 2022). Seems I'm not likely to see any of this, people are more interested in pointing fingers.

[+HHL]

So langsam wird das hier echt peinlich.

[+thebruce0]

Let's calm it down here.

Strictly speaking, unless there is more to the story about the finders than what we know here, then yes it can be defended that the reviewer overstepped by deleting the FINDERS logs if their signatures are in the logbook - if they found the geocache, their find log stands, and it matters not one iota what country they're based in. Regardless of anyone's opinion of their motivation for signing the log book; statistics are not a competition and statistics don't affect anyone but their own users. There is precedent for logs being reinstated for merely ink-on-log, on good and bad cache listings, whatever the means it happened.  However we all know that 'no precedent' rule applies to reviewer actions. So, ultimately, a higher authority will need to judge - seeing more of the story than we do - whether the reviewer's actions were appropriate or not.  We can scream and shout in here all we want but these arguments are based on what-ifs and theories. Until there's more details about the full story here (and there may never be), this will continue to be merely a shouting match.

[+Team Canary]

Move the Listed Coordinates to a location in Poland if its all about the cache that people found.

 

I suspect it won't happen, because they don't want the find, the D/T or the Multi, they want the find and/or statistics in the new country.

[+papu66]

I'm surprised the CO has been able to get caches published in multiple countries. They may not require much maintenance as they don't seem to attract many cachers. Some of them are in remote locations. They must have asked to name a local cacher to take care of caches prior to publication. At least, that's what they ask here when cache is far from home coordiantes.

 

IMO there should be no such thing as virtual stage multi. If coordinates are meant to be solved from the couche, it's a mystery and should be within two miles. Otherwise, I see no problem that posted coordinates are in a different country. Deleting logs for genuine finds made in good faith is not ok.  

[+niraD]

1 hour ago, papu66 said:

IMO there should be no such thing as virtual stage multi.

Multi-caches with virtual stages have been around forever though. Most of the multi-caches that I've found have required me to collect information from existing objects at the virtual stage(s) to determine the location of the final, which was the only physical stage. Multi-caches with virtual stages aren't going away any time soon.

[+thebruce0]

1 hour ago, papu66 said:

Deleting logs for genuine finds made in good faith is not ok.

 

Agreed, except for "in good faith" as that's extremely subjective. One person's good faith is another person's unsolved puzzle or shared coordinates or leap frog or team caching or couch caching or or or......  This is why HQ made the guideline that a find is valid if the name under which the geocacher is geocaching is written on the log sheet - not that it's written in their own hand or any other extenuating circumstance; their first stance is to avoid the he-said/she-said, and first recommend to cachers in disagreement to resolve it themselves, or to take the higher ground and decide when to just step back.  Again in this case, judging the motivation of the finders of said cache(s) is beyond the guidelines. At most it's up to HQ, not us, to render a verdict outside of what we know per guidelines, and that's that their names are on the log sheet (purportedly) and so they are valid find logs, and "good faith" motivation for signing the logs isn't relevant.

[+papu66]

55 minutes ago, niraD said:

Multi-caches with virtual stages have been around forever though. Most of the multi-caches that I've found have required me to collect information from existing objects at the virtual stage(s) to determine the location of the final, which was the only physical stage. Multi-caches with virtual stages aren't going away any time soon.

Sorry, I used wrong term for lack of better. By "virtual" I meant one that does not require to visit to stage. I'm aware of non physical stages. I find very few recent multis use physical stages, which is a pity (but understandably necessary in saturated regions).  I have nothing against virtual stages if COs have selected the task such that is not solvable by googling and I'm happy to say most have succeeded. In the few cases that I have been able to solve beforehand, they are likely older caches for which the spoiling information has appeared later. 

However if the information to proceed to cache is readily available in internet by design, that's definitely against the spirit of multi caches. In this case the cache type is only selected to circumvent the 2 mile rule.