A Spate of Just "no" Visits - How to handle somebody posting one word/zero photos?

[401Photos]

Between April 27th and today, May 6th, a person has posted Visits to over two dozen of my WMs (all within a close radius in central Florida) with identical text:

no

 

...and one WM with:

 

ok

 

That's it. A single, uncapitalized word. No photos either.

I checked out some of their Visits to other people's WMs, and found most of them are the same. Just the word "no" or "ok", a couple with "been there", and with an exception for a Boy Scout Camp -- "leave the kids alone".

What is an appropriate way for handling this situation? Should the Visits be deleted/not counted? 

Thanks!

Edited May 6, 2024 by 401Photos
Clarification

[+Max and 99]

49 minutes ago, 401Photos said:

Between April 27th and today, May 6th, a person has posted Visits to over two dozen of my WMs (all within a close radius in central Florida) with identical text:

no

 

...and one WM with:

 

ok

 

That's it. A single, uncapitalized word. No photos either.

I checked out some of their Visits to other people's WMs, and found most of them are the same. Just the word "no" or "ok", a couple with "been there", and with an exception for a Boy Scout Camp -- "leave the kids alone".

What is an appropriate way for handling this situation? Should the Visits be deleted/not counted? 

Thanks!

Delete!

[Country_Wife]

Agreed. I would delete without a second thought. The poster’s only contribution is to clutter up the visit logs. 

[+Bear and Ragged]

Delete!

Especially if the Visit requirements ask for a photo.

(And some categories ask you to "Describe your experience/visit... etc")

[+bluesnote]

This specific person has logged about 100+ of my waymarks in central Florida. I reached out to them explaining they need to upload photos for proof of visit. No response after a few days. Now they are back to logging more of my waymarks. To me: no photo = no credit. I also use the same standards when I visit other waymarks, despite if I clearly remember seeing the object in person. It's not that hard to take a photo nowadays.

[+FamilieFrohne]

I had once a waymarker in Germany, that logged all the waymarks with a dot ( . ) only - no pictures were added, so I didn't have the proof that said waymarker was really on the spot. As the first waymark visit of that person was only a few months ago, I wrote a message telling him, that the picture and/or the visit log were mandatory and gave him seven days to fix the log and to add a picture. Nothing changed in that period, so I deleted the logs after the mentioned seven days.

 

On 5/10/2024 at 9:45 PM, bluesnote said:

It's not that hard to take a photo nowadays.

I fully agree, but I also know some cachers that do not own a smartphone, they use only a stand-alone GPS receiver and an old cell phone to call and do some SMS (i.e. a Nokia 3210). But I'm sure that they would also find a way to take some pictures.

[+bluesnote]

This person continues to log waymarks. Can we get HQ involved to restrict access to this account? I've deleted probably 400-500 logs from them so far.

[+bluesnote]

18 hours ago, FamilieFrohne said:

I fully agree, but I also know some cachers that do not own a smartphone, they use only a stand-alone GPS receiver and an old cell phone to call and do some SMS (i.e. a Nokia 3210). But I'm sure that they would also find a way to take some pictures.

 

This person is visiting a very famous theme park. I find it hard to believe they do not have a camera.

[Country_Wife]

If this person doesn’t have a camera or a smartphone, they still have some kind of internet connection; otherwise they wouldn’t be able to post at all. But all they do is post two letters, “no”. Some older categories don’t require a photo, but ask for a text description of your experience instead. This person is not even doing that. 

 

When I first started here, I didn’t have a smartphone. I had an ancient GPS receiver and a basic digital camera, plus a notebook to record what I’d seen. I put it all together on my computer at home to log my visits and new waymarks. It was not that tough, and the tech has only gotten cheaper and easier in the last ten years. 

 

They are just spamming. I agree, best just to block them.

[401Photos]

Thanks for the feedback, everybody.

One more visit notice yesterday -- this one for an electric vehicle charging station at a Florida rest stop with the same "no" and nothing else.

I sent a note this morning that I hope was friendly, informational, and set expectations to add more than "no" -- saying brief, complete sentences and an original photo or two would be appreciated and appropriate -- otherwise the entries will be deleted.

Bluesnote: In light of those few hundred already deleted, too, I'd certainly be with you to have HQ do a review of the account. At the very least, the issue creates unnecessary work for managing our WMs.

[+BoomersOTR]

Sent the following message on 5/7/24:

“BoomersOTR says,
Hi, as an owner of numerous waymarks you’ve visited I would like to let you know that visiting a waymark and constantly writing ‘no’ is rude and lacks proper Waymarking etiquette. It is customary to make a positive comment about the Waymark and what you found interesting about it. It is also customary to submit a photo you took of the Waymark. In some cases it is required. Please submit a photo for all future visits and include a positive comment about your visit. ie: visiting a Boy Scout Camp and commenting ‘leave the kids alone’ is totally inappropriate.”
Still getting visits without photos and rude or ‘no’ in comments. Today, so far, over a dozen more visits.   

[+Ariberna]

Me, I don't waste any more time.
I shamelessly erase them.

Now one run**** log wothout photos

[+Smurffaaja]

There was once a person who didn't post any pictures. Well, I contacted him thru geocaching, because found that there was found of caches nearby my waymarks.

I never got any reply, but since then all waymark logs of this same person do have good pictures. So I would say reason might be that person didn't read decrpitions well enough of didn't know how to include pictures.

 

[+BoomersOTR]

Well, I just spent the afternoon deleting over 50 visits from this person. Including the rude and insulting comments. Now they are re-visiting and commenting “duplicate, ok, and more no’s.  Really!!!  This after I wrote them requesting photos and more than one word comments.  Even if this person is primarily a geocacher, apparently they don’t understand the concept of Waymarking. 

[+Max and 99]

I got my first of these visits today. Here I was thinking how lucky I was!

[+bluesnote]

Aaaaand they are back to spam logging more of my waymarks. Can @wayfrog please get involved?? Thank you!

[+Benchmark Blasterz]

I know I’m late to the no party but I’m getting these logs on my WMs too. 
 

I cannot figure out the point of this? Just graffiti on the site? Could this be a bot? 

[+petendot]

I just got three of these logs on a Florida waymark.  I guess nothing was done about this. Delete?

[+Bear and Ragged]

4 hours ago, petendot said:

I just got three of these logs on a Florida waymark.  I guess nothing was done about this. Delete?

Yes.

[+bluesnote]

6 hours ago, petendot said:

I just got three of these logs on a Florida waymark.  I guess nothing was done about this. Delete?

This has been going on for months. HQ doesn't care about these spam logs and troll accounts. Can @wayfrog please ban this member?