FEATURE REQUEST: Verification of Logs

[+threadstone]

Hello everyone,

 

I've been having an increasing problem lately with cachers (especially newbies) logging online but not in the paper logbook. For this reason, I occasionally cross-check my online logbook with the paper logbook. So far, I've been keeping track of this in a spreadsheet, but I think a verification function for logs would be cool.

 

This could be structured so that the owner (perhaps only a Premium account?) gets a button below the log that says "Verify Log" (similar to editing the log). Once the log is verified, a "Verified logo" is displayed at the log (similar to a log with FP), and the button below the log changes to "Remove Verification."

It would also be cool to have a filter function that allows you to hide verified logs so you can see what you could/should still verify.

 

I'm not interested in deleting logs en masse or meticulously checking every log in detail. It's just starting to get on my nerves that more and more cachers are doing whatever they want (simply logging without having been there is one of these points – other points would be hiding caches differently (more obviously) than they were before, taking caches with you, writing swear words in the paper logbook, etc.).

 

What do you think of this idea? Is it sensible or "too much"?

 

Best regards,
Andi

[+niraD]

1 hour ago, threadstone said:

This could be structured so that the owner (perhaps only a Premium account?) gets a button below the log that says "Verify Log" (similar to editing the log). Once the log is verified, a "Verified logo" is displayed at the log (similar to a log with FP), and the button below the log changes to "Remove Verification."

It would also be cool to have a filter function that allows you to hide verified logs so you can see what you could/should still verify.

 

I'm not interested in deleting logs en masse or meticulously checking every log in detail. It's just starting to get on my nerves that more and more cachers are doing whatever they want (simply logging without having been there is one of these points – other points would be hiding caches differently (more obviously) than they were before, taking caches with you, writing swear words in the paper logbook, etc.).

 

What do you think of this idea? Is it sensible or "too much"?

The next thing you know, there will be a statistic based on finds with "Verified" logs, and people playing that game will start harassing cache owners to "hurry up and verify my log".

 

Or they'll start avoiding the caches of COs who don't "Verify" logs quickly. Hmm... There's an idea...

[+Calypso62]

I don't think a lot of newbies actually know it's a requirement to sign the physical log inside a cache. There are a number of "experienced" cachers who also don't seem to know that.

When I become aware a physical log hasn't been signed, and that's usually by the cacher themselves stating they didn't have a pen, I have a form message I send with gentle reminder of the requirement. I prefer to educate rather than wield a stick.

[+The_Jumping_Pig]

There's a local cacher in my area who only signs logs some of the time as far as I can tell. I'm confident he finds them -- he DNFs ones that are newly missing and is a really chill cacher -- never writes more than a sentence in a log and although he often first to find a cache he doesn't even write that in his log. I honestly doubt he'd care if I deleted his log, but I don't... meh. 

 

I've rarely ran into situations close to me where people log caches they haven't found. I feel like adding this verification thing is a big mess that's not really worth it. At least where I'm from its not really that hard to cross-reference logs if you really want to, I don't get too many...

[+CAVinoGal]

12 hours ago, threadstone said:

This could be structured so that the owner (perhaps only a Premium account?) gets a button below the log that says "Verify Log" (similar to editing the log). Once the log is verified, a "Verified logo" is displayed at the log (similar to a log with FP), and the button below the log changes to "Remove Verification."

It would also be cool to have a filter function that allows you to hide verified logs so you can see what you could/should still verify.

<snip>

What do you think of this idea? Is it sensible or "too much"?

 

I think (my opinion only) it would add an unnecessary amount of pressure on CO's to "Verify", meaning you need to go and check the physical log each time one of your caches is found in order to "verify" in a timely manner.  At least I would feel pressured if I had to verify logs.  I do check physical logs now and then, or if I feel something is amiss, but normally I trust that the signatures are in the logs when they are logged online.

10 hours ago, niraD said:

The next thing you know, there will be a statistic based on finds with "Verified" logs, and people playing that game will start harassing cache owners to "hurry up and verify my log".

 

Or they'll start avoiding the caches of COs who don't "Verify" logs quickly.

 

^^^This.  

Honestly, I don't think it would be used by most CO's, as most likely don't check physical logs against online logs anyway.  Just my 2 cents.

[+barefootjeff]

45 minutes ago, CAVinoGal said:

I think (my opinion only) it would add an unnecessary amount of pressure on CO's to "Verify", meaning you need to go and check the physical log each time one of your caches is found in order to "verify" in a timely manner.  At least I would feel pressured if I had to verify logs.  I do check physical logs now and then, or if I feel something is amiss, but normally I trust that the signatures are in the logs when they are logged online.

 

Yes, that's pretty much how I see it too. My caches rarely get found, a lot of the time my Dashboard says there's been no activity on them in the past week, and it's only if an online log looks suspicious that I'll go and check the physical log. Even then, there's nearly always a signature in there, even though a lot of the new players sign the logs with their real name rather than their caching name. My caches all have pencils in them so forgetting their pen is no excuse.

 

Also many of my caches are a fair hike (or kayak paddle) out to them and back, so having to go out there to verify logs that I know full well are legitimate from what they wrote on-line would be pretty onerous. For other COs I know who place caches in much tougher terrain than mine, and have full time jobs and family commitments to fit into their caching, it'd be a much bigger burden. For example, yesterday our group did a full-day 20km hike out to a remote cache (GC6A0), with about 800 metres of elevation change along the way. One of the photos posted shows the cache and contents, though none show our group actually signing the logbook (I didn't, but only because I'd done that a decade earlier). Should the CO (if they're even still active, considering it's a 2001 cache) have to go out there and verify those logs?

[+The A-Team]

I agree with the others that it would put an undue burden on COs, and also that it would lead to gamification.

 

I could see the feature being added as a private system only. That is, similar to the Personal Cache Note, it could be visible only to the CO so they can use it to keep track of verified logs if they choose to do so. That would replace the OP's need to use a separate spreadsheet, but it could also be simply ignored if the CO chooses not to verify logs.

 

Personally, I don't think such a feature would be used enough to be worth the development time.

[+PlantAKiss]

While I can see how this type of verification system might be too complicated to implement, perhaps if Cacher's knew that publicly it would be shown that they didn't sign a log, they might think twice about logging a cache they didn't actually sign (armchair or avoiding a DNF).

 

I too have been seeing a lot of this. I'm not normally a cache police always checking my logs against the signed logs, but just lately when I did maintenance a run, I happened to look at the logs and compare them to the online logs, and I was quite surprised to see a number of names that were not on the paper cache log. Well-known local cachers, high numbers cachers. And I've been mulling over what to do.  I don't want fake online logs but don't want to create ill-will.   False find logs skew Difficulty ratings. Maybe a Verified button would be a deterrent.

[+barefootjeff]

3 hours ago, The A-Team said:

I could see the feature being added as a private system only. That is, similar to the Personal Cache Note, it could be visible only to the CO so they can use it to keep track of verified logs if they choose to do so. That would replace the OP's need to use a separate spreadsheet, but it could also be simply ignored if the CO chooses not to verify logs.

 

Maybe an easy way for the CO to do this is to create a private list, called Verification Pending or some such, and whenever a log comes in that they want to verify add the cache to that list, then remove it after they've gone out and checked the signatures. I do something similar with pending FPs if I want to award one but don't have any spare.

[+edexter]

I think it adds work for the CO and doesn't address the issue which is that folks claim a find without signing the log.  The only way to verify actual signatures is to compare the dates and names in the logbook with the cache page claims.  Adding a button to confirm you did that doesn't simplify the process.  Caches that "go missing" don't allow verification, so..  Most of my caches are wood hides and comparing the logbook to the cache page general shows everyone signs in unless they forget a pen.  In that case a photo of the log works just as well.  On one occasion I placed a P&G at popular location and the cache design required relatively frequent changes of the log.  This cache had roughly 20 times the number of finds as my usual cache (it was literally a 20 second process) and had about a 10 percent "fake find it log" rate.  I would regular delete the fakes, explain why to the fakee, and only got "Sorry, I was on my list but I guess I skipped it" once.  All my caches contain pencils as a rule, but personally if I forget a pen (or lose it along the way) I take a photo as a substitue and ask the CO for forgiveness.  

   My solution to the "forgot a pen" issue is simply:  require the CO to provide one in the cache.  For those nano and micro lovers where the pencil is bigger than the cache?  Oh my...;-)

[+JL_HSTRE]

If a cache goes missing or a logsheet is reduced to mush there is no way to verify the logs.

[+kunarion]

4 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

If a cache goes missing or a logsheet is reduced to mush there is no way to verify the logs.

 

 

So this idea would discourage cachers from making logs like "Too wet to sign gimme my Smilie!", and encourage people to make NM/NA for those unattended tubes with wet logs?  I'm beginning to warm up to the idea. 

 

[+kunarion]

On 6/3/2025 at 7:19 PM, edexter said:

My solution to the "forgot a pen" issue is simply:  require the CO to provide one in the cache. 

 

You would think so, would you not? 

 

Edited June 5 by kunarion

[+kunarion]

On 6/1/2025 at 6:52 AM, threadstone said:

Hello everyone,

 

I've been having an increasing problem lately with cachers (especially newbies) logging online but not in the paper logbook. For this reason, I occasionally cross-check my online logbook with the paper logbook. So far, I've been keeping track of this in a spreadsheet, but I think a verification function for logs would be cool.

 

This could be structured so that the owner (perhaps only a Premium account?) gets a button below the log that says "Verify Log" (similar to editing the log). Once the log is verified, a "Verified logo" is displayed at the log (similar to a log with FP), and the button below the log changes to "Remove Verification."

It would also be cool to have a filter function that allows you to hide verified logs so you can see what you could/should still verify.

 

I'm not interested in deleting logs en masse or meticulously checking every log in detail. It's just starting to get on my nerves that more and more cachers are doing whatever they want (simply logging without having been there is one of these points – other points would be hiding caches differently (more obviously) than they were before, taking caches with you, writing swear words in the paper logbook, etc.).

 

What do you think of this idea? Is it sensible or "too much"?

 

Best regards,
Andi

 

You may do something similar today by adding appropriate text to your OM log once you check the signatures.  "Verified A, B, and C cacher Finds".  Show us how well it works, do a Proof Of Concept.  

 

I often Visit my personal TB at caches, and show the spot where I signed the log, in a log photo.  It's not to verify anything, it helps me create a story for me, about caches I find. 

 

 

But I also tend to show a little more than my own log signature, when there are apparent incongruencies.  It is kind of annoying to me that cachers claim they did when they did not, for a cache that takes a leetle extra work.  Especially when everyone and his monkey insists that fake finds don't affect me... because if it was not in fact Found, I can't be confident that it is findable.

 

Edited June 5 by kunarion

[+threadstone]

Very interesting discussion. Thank you all for your feedback!

The idea was just to have a tool for the owner to check / verify the logs. My thinking was to to create a contest or something like that.

Eventually it can also be released so that only the owner sees the verified status.

It was also not thought that it is a must. My idea was that the owner could use it, when he wants to (specially when there are a lot of deviations / inconsistencies.

As I wrote I started doing this more or less with a excel sheet because in the last weeks and month a lot of cacher logged my caches as found but they were not there. This just annoys me.

[+cerberus1]

On 6/5/2025 at 5:07 AM, kunarion said:

You would think so, would you not? 

  We finally stopped putting pencils in caches some time ago.  They punch holes in divider baggies, and always go missing.

Every time we'd do maintenance on any of our ammo can caches, the divider bags (separating swag from the log n Trackables) would be punctured/torn.  All pens n pencils would be missing, as well as the pink piggy erasers and pencil sharpeners. 

 - We were buying sharpeners by the gross...   Finally got tired of re-supplying TOTT that every cacher should have on their person.

[+kunarion]

On 6/8/2025 at 10:35 AM, threadstone said:

Very interesting discussion. Thank you all for your feedback!

The idea was just to have a tool for the owner to check / verify the logs. My thinking was to to create a contest or something like that.

Eventually it can also be released so that only the owner sees the verified status.

It was also not thought that it is a must. My idea was that the owner could use it, when he wants to (specially when there are a lot of deviations / inconsistencies.

As I wrote I started doing this more or less with a excel sheet because in the last weeks and month a lot of cacher logged my caches as found but they were not there. This just annoys me.

 

Instead of radio buttons, maybe a Personal Note for each log would do.  The Cache Owner could keep notes for whatever purpose he chooses, and such notes could be listed and sorted.  The note may be visible only to the CO.  Or be publicly readable if that works better, talk amongst yourselves...

[+x7Kevin]

HQ has apparently been working on the idea of 'verified finds' or another way to log geocaches for a while. They might be testing something with ALs mid-summer and then if that works implement it into the Geocaching app. 

 

See this video at 1:16:20

https://www.youtube.com/live/SVyLHAza_pc?si=NcnW9KImyw8LxC2Q&t=4580

 

 

 

 

 

[+Max and 99]

8 minutes ago, x7Kevin said:

HQ has apparently been working on the idea of 'verified finds' or another way to log geocaches for a while. They might be testing something with ALs mid-summer and then if that works implement it into the Geocaching app. 

 

See this video at 1:16:20

https://www.youtube.com/live/SVyLHAza_pc?si=NcnW9KImyw8LxC2Q&t=4580

 

 

 

 

 

We'll that's interesting!

[+barefootjeff]

1 hour ago, x7Kevin said:

HQ has apparently been working on the idea of 'verified finds' or another way to log geocaches for a while. They might be testing something with ALs mid-summer and then if that works implement it into the Geocaching app. 

 

I hope that doesn't mean we'll be forced to use the app for caching and have phone coverage at GZ.

[+The A-Team]

Ah okay, so even though I do go to every cache I log and sign the log, I'll be forced to use Munzee mode or my finds will be assumed to be false?

 

There are just so many issues with that idea that I don't even know where to start...

[+hzoi]

On 6/1/2025 at 5:52 AM, threadstone said:

What do you think of this idea? Is it sensible or "too much"?

 

Too much; not sensible.

 

If you want to verify logs, go out and verify logs, and then delete those that don't belong.
 

On 6/1/2025 at 5:52 AM, threadstone said:

I'm not interested in deleting logs en masse or meticulously checking every log in detail.

 

Well, one of your jobs as a cache owner is to police logs. It's within your responsibility to delete finds for those that haven't signed the log.

 

If you don't want to delete them, fine, that's your call. But don't drag the Groundspeak programming staff into accommodating your failure to enforce standards. I think they've got enough going on.

[+barefootjeff]

On 6/10/2025 at 8:51 AM, x7Kevin said:

HQ has apparently been working on the idea of 'verified finds' or another way to log geocaches for a while. They might be testing something with ALs mid-summer and then if that works implement it into the Geocaching app. 

 

See this video at 1:16:20

https://www.youtube.com/live/SVyLHAza_pc?si=NcnW9KImyw8LxC2Q&t=4580

 

 

 

 

 

 

There's more on this near the end of the latest HQ podcast:

 

Quote

how can we build the site in such a way that we have a verified find? Because everybody can say they’ve been to a geocache, but how can you actually prove it, at least to the best you can? And that’s where we’ve been playing around this idea of lodestone, which you’re starting to work on for the Adventure Lab product. But ultimately, the goal is to bring it to geocaching and the idea where you actually have time stamped logs where you can find a geocache, you can tap it, and it’ll actually show that you had been there.

 

0:51:47.6 Jeremy Irish: And there’s just all sorts of different cool things that you can do with a proven find that you can’t do with just logging a geocache.

 

0:51:57.4 Bryan Roth: Yeah. So for one example, with lodestone, you know, we’ve talked about like, what if we wanted to create some prizes for people who find particular caches? Well, if we said, you know, log this cache and first one to log it gets a prize, hypothetically, well, then it takes somebody sitting on their couch saying, great, I found the cache, I logged it, you know, I was first, give me my prize. And it’s like, well, how do we prove that? All right. Did they sign the logbook? Maybe, maybe not. But if we say, hey, you have to tap your phone on a secure NFC chip and we’re going to know for certain, well, then there’s some interesting opportunities to do, you know, maybe better prizes. Maybe there’s some sponsored contest that we can work on. You know, we just released the treasures feature set on geocaching. And right now you have to go out to complete collections of treasures. You have to find specific types of caches. What if we created at some point in the future, like really rare treasures that were hard to get, but we really needed you to not just log the cache, but we needed you to prove that you were there.

 

0:53:03.9 Bryan Roth: So this lodestone product that we’re working on now provides the opportunity to do that. So we just put some of these tags in shop geocaching. We will be selling those right now with Adventure Lab because Adventure Lab is restricted to mostly virtual content with the exception of events or sponsored adventures. We’ll be doing some experimentation using lodestone tags as a challenge type. So instead of going to a location and answering a question or a multiple choice question, you go to a location and you will tap your phone to prove that you were there. And that could advance the storyline, unlock the next stage, or at least give you credit for the stage that you’ve completed and just more opportunities to experiment and see what else we can bring to the game.

 

[+Deepdiggingmole]

This is an issue that I have raised, as I have been, over the last 2-3 years (probably longer tbf)  sending out message/emails to new cachers to ask if they have signed and advise when I know they haven't. I never used to have to do this in the early days but since the app and folk downloading it and not checking out the website, it has become a much required task

So my suggestion to the newbie, only on the app, not knowing the signing rule is for the app to have a pop up window for the first 50 or so caches that the new cacher logs asking 'Did you sign the logsheet ? - if not do not log this as found, only as a write note' - but no one from HQ has acknowledged this or considered it as useful tool 

I would think if this pop-up was added - it would tell/remind new cachers of this requirement and act as a reminder until they have got to the point where they should know this (50 found logs would suffice)  
This would also help COs who do check their logsheets to save the constant emails/messages being sent. If we know new cachers are being reminded of this requirement we do not need to constantly check with them. So if they haven't signed and so just ignored that message then the CO can delete (if they wish) without fuss.

[+Deepdiggingmole]

On 6/10/2025 at 7:09 PM, hzoi said:

Well, one of your jobs as a cache owner is to police logs. It's within your responsibility to delete finds for those that haven't signed the log.

 

If you don't want to delete them, fine, that's your call. But don't drag the Groundspeak programming staff into accommodating your failure to enforce standards. I think they've got enough going on.

Though I agree with this as the responsibility of a CO - but one of the biggest issues of late is how new cachers go straight onto the app and have no idea of the rules/guidelines and so not aware of the signing rule. 
A CO going out and checking a cache and whether it has been signed and then considering deletion is one thing - but the fact remains, if new cachers are not aware of the rule to sign - why aren't they ? The app is not highlighting this enough for them to know this is a rule/requirement. I know, because I have written / messaged many dozens of new cachers who all said they were not aware. 

I am not sure of the verification idea but I have suggested a pop up window in the app for cachers with less than 50 finds - it appears when they go to log a find and says something similar to 'Did you sign the logbook/sheet - if not you can only log this as a write note' 
This isn't a case of dragging GS programming staff anywhere it is a suggestion to help new cachers and COs alike 

[+Deepdiggingmole]

On 6/1/2025 at 1:58 PM, Calypso62 said:

I don't think a lot of newbies actually know it's a requirement to sign the physical log inside a cache. There are a number of "experienced" cachers who also don't seem to know that.

When I become aware a physical log hasn't been signed, and that's usually by the cacher themselves stating they didn't have a pen, I have a form message I send with gentle reminder of the requirement. I prefer to educate rather than wield a stick.

I am doing this all the time - I blame the app as many new cachers go straight onto that - never on the website and just aren't aware of what is required 
I would argue though that all 'experienced' cachers do know this rule - there are some who choose to flout it knowing that many COS don't bother checking the logbook