False log entries?

March 20, 2002

How is it that someone has managed to log over 600 cache finds? I checked a few log entries and this is what I found:

On February 21, 2002, this cacher logged caches in Wisconsin (GC3244), Ontario (GC31A7), and Illinois (GC3097). Busy day I guess.

Then on February 22, 2002, he logged two caches in Georgia (GC3A18 and GC38BF), three in Pennsylvania (GC2AFC, GC3507, and GC350A), one in Texas (GC2C00), and one in Alberta (GC36FA).

Most were virtual caches where the required information was probably found doing an internet search. The log entries, though, don't admit this, and clearly suggest that he was actually at the location. (None of the above are locationless or multiple location caches).

It seems to me that finding the answer to a cache on the internet without going there should not be considered a legitimate find. I'm not going to lose sleep over it, but it does bother me a little. What does everyone else think?

March 20, 2002

I'm with you, Geo. I've got no problem with logging a virtual find, as long as you have satisfied the cache placer's requirements. And that usually means you have to actually visit the co-ords listed on the site. I have even logged some 'location-less' caches where I have to find the co-ords of a particular nature. Either way, I have used my GPSR, gotten off my behind, and got outside.

There may be many people using the geocaching ID you speak of. I find it hard to believe that one person is physically visiting all of these caches. To each his own, it doesn't affect me or my find count.

March 20, 2002

Sounds pretty suspicious to me. Certainly, nobody should be logging a cache if they haven't found it. However, just like in most other things, there are cheaters and people that only get self-esteem from artificially building themselves up. Every now and then I'll notice that someone else has logged 10 new caches to my one, and I start feeling sorry for myself and wanting a bigger find number (it's 49). That's when I dust off the self-lecture and remind myself that geocaching is for fun, getting outside, seeing new places and learning new things. The number doesn't really matter and as much as I enjoy it, there's more to life than geocaching. If Super-cacher has that many legitimate finds, I offer congratulations.

March 20, 2002

It's possible that the cacher found several caches over a period of time and then sat down to log them all at once but did not change the default date.

Just a thought...

-exConn

What is Project Virginia?

March 20, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Geo Leo:
How is it that someone has managed to log over 600 cache finds?

... snip ...

What does everyone else think?

There was another thread like this a little while back. Some mentioned the possibility that this was a group or club or something. I dunno. If it is one individual that is claiming all these, he must think the entire geocache community is pretty stupid!

Oh well, it doesn't really matter, as long as the rest of us are having fun!

Bluespreacher

March 20, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Geo Leo:
How is it that someone has managed to log over 600 cache finds?

... snip ...

What does everyone else think?

There was another thread like this a little while back. Some mentioned the possibility that this was a group or club or something. I dunno. If it is one individual that is claiming all these, he must think the entire geocache community is pretty stupid!

Oh well, it doesn't really matter, as long as the rest of us are having fun!

Bluespreacher

March 20, 2002

I came across one cacher who was creating his own caches then logging them for about 20 "finds" and archiving them quickly. I estimate he racked up at least 120 finds that way.

Geesh!

March 20, 2002

quote:
I came across one cacher who was creating his own caches then logging them for about 20 "finds" and archiving them quickly. I estimate he racked up at least 120 finds that way.

Geesh!

How cheesey is that?!?

March 20, 2002

quote:
I came across one cacher who was creating his own caches then logging them for about 20 "finds" and archiving them quickly. I estimate he racked up at least 120 finds that way.

Geesh!

How cheesey is that?!?

March 20, 2002

I looked on the Net to see if I could find out about this user.

I was originally suspecting a company but I don't see anything on the net. Either this guy/girl is loaded with cash or they are cheaters.

Oh well, if they are rich then good for them because if I were rich I'd go on a multi cache expedition to hit every cache in the world!

If they are cheaters then I feel really sad for someone who needs to act like that.

Rob

Mobile Cache Command

March 20, 2002

I looked on the Net to see if I could find out about this user.

I was originally suspecting a company but I don't see anything on the net. Either this guy/girl is loaded with cash or they are cheaters.

Oh well, if they are rich then good for them because if I were rich I'd go on a multi cache expedition to hit every cache in the world!

If they are cheaters then I feel really sad for someone who needs to act like that.

Rob

Mobile Cache Command

5k · March 20, 2002

I don't have any first-hand information, but Mopar has assured me that CCCooperAgency's finds are completely legitimate. Mopar says that pretty much every cache he's ever found has a CCCooperAgency signature item in it.

I'm not sure if CCCooperAgency is a person, a family, or a multi-player team, but Mopar has told me that he's aware that "they" travel quite frequently.

Although I find it hard to believe, I think CCCooperAgency is the real deal.

Jamie

3k · March 20, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by The Treasurer:

How cheesey is that?!?

My guess is it's about half as "cheesey" as what you folks have been doing here. And here I thought this was considered a family activity.

The original poster "tossed the first stone," but didn't "name names," but gee, since only one username has amassed 600 finds, who could it be?

I don't pretend to be an expert on the CCCooper Agency's activities, but I have exchanged several e-mails over the months with one of the adult/parent members, and consider her to be one of the nicest, most dedicated and forthright individuals I have had contact with in this sport.

And I expect if you sent an e-mail to their username, you would soon receive a friendly note answering your questions.

I can tell you from first-hand knowledge that they have signed the logbook (or provided the information for the virtual cache) for each of my caches they claimed 'finds' for. Most of those caches are located at least 150 miles from CCCooper Agency's home base.

quote:
Originally posted by Da Rebel:
I came across one cacher who was creating his own caches then logging them for about 20 "finds" and archiving them quickly. I estimate he racked up at least 120 finds that way.

Yeah, this "urban legend" keeps popping up frequently too, and similarly, I've never seen a name attached to it. I say, post a link so we can verify it for ourselves.

[This message was edited by BassoonPilot on March 20, 2002 at 08:00 PM.]

3k · March 20, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by The Treasurer:

How cheesey is that?!?

My guess is it's about half as "cheesey" as what you folks have been doing here. And here I thought this was considered a family activity.

The original poster "tossed the first stone," but didn't "name names," but gee, since only one username has amassed 600 finds, who could it be?

I don't pretend to be an expert on the CCCooper Agency's activities, but I have exchanged several e-mails over the months with one of the adult/parent members, and consider her to be one of the nicest, most dedicated and forthright individuals I have had contact with in this sport.

And I expect if you sent an e-mail to their username, you would soon receive a friendly note answering your questions.

I can tell you from first-hand knowledge that they have signed the logbook (or provided the information for the virtual cache) for each of my caches they claimed 'finds' for. Most of those caches are located at least 150 miles from CCCooper Agency's home base.

quote:
Originally posted by Da Rebel:
I came across one cacher who was creating his own caches then logging them for about 20 "finds" and archiving them quickly. I estimate he racked up at least 120 finds that way.

Yeah, this "urban legend" keeps popping up frequently too, and similarly, I've never seen a name attached to it. I say, post a link so we can verify it for ourselves.

[This message was edited by BassoonPilot on March 20, 2002 at 08:00 PM.]

March 20, 2002

I noticed this too! Its very suspicious that the Illinois virtual cache is only 1 mile away from another virtual cache that they certainly would have logged if they had really been there! The only difference between the two caches is that the one that they logged required info that was available on the internet, the other asked for info that could only be found at the site. Someone else also noticed that in Feb they logged caches in TX, GA and Alberta on the same day. Pretty sad!

March 20, 2002

Well, I dont know them personally, and I havent exchanged emails with them, but all the caches I go to around here have their signature items. They also frequently post pics of cache hunts that I can verify are the places. As tough as it is for me to believe, I have to guess that they are for real. How they log so many finds in such a short time is beyond me...it must be nice to not have to work!

March 20, 2002

Must we backbite? I don't like for people to be dishonest with their findings either, but does it really matter? All I can say is that if it doesn't pose any real danger to the other users, it is not worth our breath. It gets us no where to gang up to condemn and chat about how wrong we think someone else is...we don't know their stories and probably never will. It isn't good to cheat, but it is their business and as long as it harms no one else I say leave it be.

Peace please,

geophers

March 20, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Geo Leo:
Most were virtual caches where the required information was probably found doing an internet search.

I don't know if the person you are talking about is logging these virtual caches dishonestly or not but this is one of the many reasons I don't like virtual caches. Won't place 'em, won't hunt 'em. I think there should be a separate number to track virtual caches found.

1.3k · March 20, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Jamie Z:
I'm not sure if CCCooperAgency is a person, a family, or a multi-player team, but Mopar has told me that he's aware that "they" travel quite frequently.

Although I find it hard to believe, I think CCCooperAgency is the real deal.

Jamie

CCCooper is in my area. It is my understanding the they are a husband/wife team (I believe they own their own insurance agency; thus, the name). I think they have 2 daughters that cache with them sometimes also. One of them has a seperate accound "TheRealBug".

As for if/how the finds are shared between the adults, I do not know. I do know that every cache I have visited around here has had their sig in the logbook and they have visited the two physical caches that I have placed as well. They have not yet logged a virtual cache I have in extreme northern NY.

Greg

N 39°54.705'

W 77°33.137'

24.7k · March 20, 2002

A team can cover a lot of ground. Toss in some friends as part of the team from around the country and keep the team concept up wiht the team signature items an you could easily pull off legitimate finds in multiple places at the same time. As for not finding a cache 1 mile from another, thats normal. This weekend I ran out of time and left about 6 unfound ones close buy. I'll get them next time.

March 20, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

I don't pretend to be an expert on the CCCooper Agency's activities, but I have exchanged several e-mails over the months with one of the adult/parent members, and consider her to be one of the nicest, most dedicated and forthright individuals I have had contact with in this sport.

I was going to pass up this thread because I don't like the idea of talking about someone when they are not even in the conversation, but I wanted to at least echo what BassoonPilot has just mentioned.

I just exchanged 3 emails with a nice woman from that team this weekend inquiring about my cache, as well as conversation about a nearby event.

I'm not a very active cacher, but my son took one of their signature keyrings at the last cache we did and I have seen their logs in the other caches we've done as well. So, they are active here in Virginia too.

I think they are just avid cachers...

-exConn

What is Project Virginia?

March 21, 2002

For intrests sake I just had a look to see how many caches there are at the moment to be got in just 2 states (NJ and Penn.)

I was amazed to see 661 are available .It seems quite possible to get over 600 without going too far afield.

We don't have that many in the whole of our country.

Leave them alone they obviously love caching and good luck to them.

March 21, 2002

I have been caching for 11 months, worked full time (in an office, not on the road) and never logged a cache outside Utah until last weekend.

I have logged 281 finds.

If I worked on the road, or traveled more, or were retired and had a Winnebago, or whatever, I would certainly have logged 600 caches, and probably more, by now.

There are any number of reasons for the alleged "discrepancy" in the logs of any finder.

This is a stupid, petty, small-minded session. Don't you have anything better to do?

Caching has a lot bigger things to worry about than someone logging "too many" finds. There is littering, land managers, people leaving worthless junk in caches, trading inequitably, cache plundering and theft, and more. IF you want to discuss something, discuss something that matters.

bunkerdave

6.4k · March 21, 2002

quote:
On February 21, 2002, this cacher logged caches in Wisconsin (GC3244), Ontario (GC31A7), and Illinois (GC3097).Busy day I guess.

Wisconsin (GC3244) "To log this cache as a find, e-mail the answer of the following question to jwarzi@yahoo.com:

What is the name of the truck company and what year did the company make its first successful

four-wheel drive vehicle? "

Just what state would I need to be in to successfully log this cache, as required by the hider?

Ontario (GC31A7)"You will know you found the cache if you know who invented Standard Time and where and when it was invented!"

Ok, so i need to travel to the magnetic north pole to look up this info and log this cache?

Illinois (GC3097)"Anyways, answer the question: Who's Memorial Highway?

E-mail me the answer to get credit for finding the cache. Don't post your answer here, not even encrypted."

Well, I think just about everyone should at least know about google.com by now, try it, save yourself some airfare.

quote:
Then on February 22, 2002, he logged two caches in Georgia (GC3A18 and GC38BF), three in Pennsylvania (GC2AFC, GC3507, and GC350A), one in Texas (GC2C00), and one in Alberta (GC36FA).

Georgia (GC3A18"Go to parking space at the coords above and you will see a sign. On that sign you will see that it says in part "Elements of the Xth, XXth and XXrd corps under Maj. Gen Oliver O Howard with over 18,000 men passed this point."

Email me the numbers of the three corps."

Further requirements to log this as a find were added AFTER CCCooper logged it. Cache hider admitted that it was easy to look this info up on the internet, and added elements after several logs to prevent this.

GC38BF

Date it was commissioned to be built?

At what price was it built?

Standing on Mountain end of object, what compass heading would you follow to travel the center line

of bridge?

What City was it moved from and at what cost.

All easy things to look up online, but since there is NO log for CCCooper on this cache, who cares?

GC2AFC "'Cache finders' wishing to claim credit for ACTUALLY VISITING THIS VIRTUAL CACHE should answer the following question: WHAT WAS THE DATE PHILSON WAS COMMISSIONED BRIGADIER GENERAL OF THE PA MILITIA?"

Boy, this is a tough one, huh? BTW, I noticed that ALL these virtuals have been visited by lots of people all over the country. It seems to be ok for someone with 60 finds to log these, but not 600?

GC350A LOG:"February 22 by CCCooperAgency (608 found) First is fun (Pennsylvania)! The geographic point is near State College where there are several caches nearby. Check them out!!! This spot is along Hall Rd. less than 5 miles from I-80 off exit 147 to Snow Shoe! Lovely area. Go nittany lions!" OK, they live in PA. This virtual cache is logged in PA. Along a MAJOR interstate. This location is hundreds of miles from me, and *I* pass it a few times a year!

one in Texas (GC2C00) "try to figure out what unmarked piece of Austin history is here" Same situation here children. Caches that can be done from the comfort of your home on a cold winter day. Do you know for a fact every place this family has traveled? Just because they logged some armchair virtuals on a day that it was too cold to take the family out, do you know that they have NEVER been to this location?

and one in Alberta (GC36FA) "Object is to determine how many medals Canada won in the 1988 Winter Olympics, Gold/Silver/Bronze."Seems pretty simple to me. Almost all these virtuals warn that incorrect logs will be deleted, so one must assume they DID satisfy the cache hider's requirements. If the person who placed the cache is satisfied that the find is legit, who the hell is anyone else to question it? The only thing about ANY of these caches I have a problem with, is the coward that felt the need to create a phoney account to post logs on these caches accusing this family of cheating.

I personally find it offensive the way some people throw these kind of accusations around, seemingly without checking the facts. There are almost 600 OTHER caches I can link to where this family HAS visited a traditional cache, and traded items. These cachers are in the same general region as I am. There are almost 1700 (yes, thats one thousand, seven hundred) caches within 250 miles of me. It really isn't that hard to obtain those kinds of numbers here if that is ones goal. There are several other local cachers closing fast on CCCooper in the number of finds. Are all of them cheaters as well?

Any cacher in this region will tell you most of the caches they visit have logbooks signed by CCCooper and their signature items in the cache.

From the looks of it, a large amount of cachers enjoy these types of virtuals occasionally, just because YOU don't, doesn't make everyone else who logs them a cheater.

Illegitimus non carborundum!

[/LIS

[This message was edited by Mopar on March 21, 2002 at 03:03 AM.]

March 21, 2002

I'm more offended by cachers who apparently lie about finding caches just to get those caches off their 'watch list'. Are the numbers a big deal? To some, it is. Why can't this be fun and a bit personally competetive as well?

If the finds are legit, I have no problem. There was a guy who didn't want to look for a cache and logged it as a find just for driving by. We deleted the log and told him to go find it or log a note or no-find. About two weeks later, he logged it as a find again, saying something about there being no problem finding it this time. Well, there was no entry in the log book. I've seen other logs by this guy when he finds them. Who knows? May just not have wanted to log the book, but it's pretty suspect to me. He also logged as a find a cache that was obviously missing (as stated in the description) but not archived yet. He logged it as a find "to get it off my watch list". But guess what? He's also places some of the most challenging caches in the area, too.

(Warning: Repeat from months old thread coming up)

Nothing bugs me more than the log I saw about a guy in another state who logged a find when he was at the location where he 'knew it had to be' (which was more than 500 feet away)! He even traded. He left a couple trinkets in a ziplock bag where he thought the cache should be and 'took nothing'.

In conclusion, since there are no geopolice, it is up to the integrity of the finder to log what he or she deems to be worthy of a find. Unfortunately, their idea of worthy may not even come close to the standards set by us forum users.

What can we do about it? Run home and whine about it shouting 'Billy's a Cheater!" Oh yeah...it looks like we just did that.

Go! And don't be afraid to get a little wet!

1.3k · March 21, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Geo Leo:
On February 21, 2002, this cacher logged caches in Wisconsin (GC3244), Ontario (GC31A7), and Illinois (GC3097). Busy day I guess.

Perhaps the onus should be on the virtual cache owner to make sure that the confirming info is not available via an internet search. But what then do you do about virtual caches with no info requested? There are indeed a number of those out there.

Then again, does the 'find' number even matter? Are any of us in serious competition over that?

2.8k · March 21, 2002

It's not fair that some are artificially inflating their find count. I want to be the first to 1000 finds and claim the $1 million dollar prize

Only 951 to go....

2.8k · March 21, 2002

It's not fair that some are artificially inflating their find count. I want to be the first to 1000 finds and claim the $1 million dollar prize

Only 951 to go....

March 21, 2002

How Ironic! I just got on the board to post a question concerning this very cacher(s). I too am within their local area and have wondered how in the heck do they do it.

They truly do find alot of legimate caches and they seem to cache almost every day. However, they seem to add them up VERY quickly. They also live in a very cache rich area so high numbers of finds are possible.

What I recently had a problem with is that their partner (The RealBug) recently placed three virtual caches withing several feet of each other. The cache page said their distances from me were (60.22 mi, 60.23 mi, and 60.25 mi). This action convinced me that virtual caches are being taken advantage of by these users and it may have turned me off of virtual caches completly. Naturally, CCCooper were the first to find all three of these virtual caches, thus easily increasing their numbers. To me, that's not what this game is all about.

Another thing that bothers me is that I'm currently doing a multi-cache they have placed. The coordinates for one of the parts has been continously noted as being significantly off and they have never updated the coordinates or given notice that they have been updated.

I'm glad to see that I haven't been the only one to notice their questionable activity. Besides, they can't be that good...they haven't found any of my caches yet!

Smoochnme

March 21, 2002

How Ironic! I just got on the board to post a question concerning this very cacher(s). I too am within their local area and have wondered how in the heck do they do it.

They truly do find alot of legimate caches and they seem to cache almost every day. However, they seem to add them up VERY quickly. They also live in a very cache rich area so high numbers of finds are possible.

What I recently had a problem with is that their partner (The RealBug) recently placed three virtual caches withing several feet of each other. The cache page said their distances from me were (60.22 mi, 60.23 mi, and 60.25 mi). This action convinced me that virtual caches are being taken advantage of by these users and it may have turned me off of virtual caches completly. Naturally, CCCooper were the first to find all three of these virtual caches, thus easily increasing their numbers. To me, that's not what this game is all about.

Another thing that bothers me is that I'm currently doing a multi-cache they have placed. The coordinates for one of the parts has been continously noted as being significantly off and they have never updated the coordinates or given notice that they have been updated.

I'm glad to see that I haven't been the only one to notice their questionable activity. Besides, they can't be that good...they haven't found any of my caches yet!

Smoochnme

3k · March 21, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by VentureForth:
... There was a guy who didn't want to look for a cache and logged it as a find just for driving by. We deleted the log and told him to go find it or log a note or no-find. About two weeks later, he logged it as a find again, saying something about there being no problem finding it this time. Well, there was no entry in the log book. ... In conclusion, since there are no geopolice, it is up to the integrity of the finder to log what he or she deems to be worthy of a find. Unfortunately, their idea of worthy may not even come close to the standards set by us forum users. What can we do about it?

But there ARE "Geopolice." Each and every cache owner has the ability (and I would suggest responsibility) to "police" his/her caches, as you have done.

That's all it takes . . . you mention the log being a matter of integrity for the finder. I suggest that it's also a matter of integrity for the cache owner. Such matters must be handled politely, yet firmly. Just the sorts of things that have been frequently discussed in these forums . . . e-mail the questionable finder, and if necessary copy the questionable log and e-mail it back to the suspected offender before deleting it from the page.

I understand that this would cause some cache owners concern over the security of their caches; unfortunately, I don't have a solution for them. But I feel that if people knew from the start that they were being held (somewhat) accountable, and knew what constituted acceptable/unacceptable behavior, problems would be minimal.

[This message was edited by BassoonPilot on March 21, 2002 at 10:29 AM.]

5k · March 21, 2002

Thank you, Bassoon Pilot. My thoughts exactly. Cache owners need to be responsible.

Jamie

2.9k · March 21, 2002

There was one cache called "Hometown anywhere", and i took a picture of my hometown sign, and logged that as a find. I have 48 real finds and that one, that does not qualify as a real one.

This is it:

Hometown (Where Yall From)

Or do you consider something like this Legit???

March 21, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Geoffrey:
There was one cache called "Hometown anywhere", and i took a picture of my hometown sign, and logged that as a find. I have 48 real finds and that one, that does not qualify as a real one.

This is it:

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=15791

Or do you consider something like this Legit???

http://members.aol.com/geoffr524/5_Rubik.gif

I would consider it legit since you were actually went out and found the location of the sign. If you had somehow managed to get a picture off of the internet, I wouldn't.

1.1k · March 21, 2002

What is the big deal about finding 600 plus caches? Who are they cheating if they have not really found them all, and if they have, more power to them. Myself, I think it would be real easy to find that many or more, if the caches are there and if you have the time to go get them. Red and I went down to Klamath Falls Oregon - 90 miles from home to the first find, a half mile uphill hike - and found 30 in two days without really trying very hard. If we had waited until the snow was gone, we would have had another 20 + finds. Those where not all drive bys or virtuals either. The virtuals we found where in cemetaries and Red and I both got out and read tombstones, another of our hobbies. We went on several multi stage hunts, a couple of long hikes and sleep in and did not get out until after 9:00am either day. We just sat down a week ahead of time and planned out our route, checked the web before leaving to look for archived caches in case. Big flipping deal. I am sure that Mopar or any of the rest of you who have large volumes of caches in your area could sit down and plan a cache raid and get 50 plus caches in a day. Bill Gates has more money then you, are you going to accuse him of cheating also? Get a life people.

Per Mopar, rant off.

1.4k · March 21, 2002

WOW!! I didn't know there was a prize for having the most caches. Oh wait there isn't. What's the big freakin' deal? I have seen the signature item and "personally" read the log entry of this person in the cache log-book quite a lot.

Just because they read the virtual cache list and answer the question necessary to log a cache does this make them cheaters? How can you cheat if there is no winner? This is supposed to be fun. No a pissing contest. I work in entertainment. There's enough of that kind of attitude there. Just go out caching, place caches in interesting areas and enjoy yourself. Life is way to short to be worried about the small stuff like this.

By the way my .sig file is more important here than any other post I have written so far.

====================================

As always, the above statements are just MHO.

====================================

March 21, 2002

I havent placed any caches yet, but when I do I have considered putting an number or a word inside the container. The finder will have to be able to email me the number in order to log the cache.

Weezer

March 21, 2002

I think some of you should re-read my original post. Did I accuse anyone of cheating? NO. I simply pointed out that a cacher was apparently posting finds to virtual caches without actually visiting the location. (Unless you really believe that they were in Alberta, Texas, Georgia, and Pennsylvania one day after visiting Wisconsin, Illinois, and Ontario the day before).

My question was whether or not you think finding a virtual cache on the internet without going to the location qualifies as a legitimate find. If you think so, fine, say so. If you think not, say so. Isn't this forum supposed to provide for a free exchange of ideas and opinions? I thought so until I got my head chopped off for asking a simple question.

As far as CCCooperAgency is concerned, there is no question that they have legitimately found a large number of caches. Now, back to the question...

24.7k · March 21, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by bunkerdave:
This is a stupid, petty, small-minded session. Don't you have anything better to do?

IF you want to discuss something, discuss something that matters.

And why exactly did you pipe in? To make a petty, small-minded comment?

Take your own advice and be nice, or at least spend your time on one of the topics that matters to you.

6.4k · March 21, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Geo Leo:
I think some of you should re-read my original post. Did I accuse anyone of cheating? NO. I simply pointed out that a cacher was apparently posting finds to virtual caches without actually visiting the location. (Unless you really believe that they were in Alberta, Texas, Georgia, and Pennsylvania one day after visiting Wisconsin, Illinois, and Ontario the day before).

OK, I took your suggestion. I went right to the top of this thread. The title is "FALSE LOG ENTRIES?" with a thumbs down icon. I read this to mean your post is about just that, someone filing FALSE log entries, which is cheating. You didn't use the actual word cheating, no, but I think everyone agrees fake logs are cheating. Your 1st line; "How is it that someone has managed to log over 600 cache finds?" followed by a list of what you, according to the subject of this thread, consider false log entries. Sure sounds like accusations of cheating to this guy. Next you write; "Most were virtual caches where the required information was probably found doing an internet search. The log entries, though, don't admit this, and clearly suggest that he was atually at the location.". This statement implies you believe the cache finder is stating they physically visited the cache location, when you believe they did not. In other words, you think they are lying.

OK, I re-read your post, and sorry, my opinion hasn't changed.

quote:
Originally posted by Geo Leo:

My question was whether or not you think finding a virtual cache on the internet without going to the location qualifies as a legitimate find. If you think so, fine, say so. If you think not, say so. Isn't this forum supposed to provide for a free exchange of ideas and opinions? I thought so until I got my head chopped off for asking a simple question.

If your only interest was in finding out peoples opinions of these types of caches/logs, then you could have/should have worded it just like you did here. You would NOT have titled it "False Log Entries". That is inflamatory to say the least.

If you had left out any mention of a particular cacher, and titled the thread "Opinions on armchair geocaching" I doubt anyone would have bit your head off.

Now since you seem to be steering the topic away from "is CCCooper cheating?" and over to "armchair geocaching" I'll give you my 4 cents worth (I already wasted my first 2 cents on my 1st post, it seems) on that. I don't care for them. I also don't care much for caches that are 500ft from a parking lot. I also don't care much for ones that require 4 hrs of searching once I get to the cache site. *MY* ideal cache is extremely challenging terrain, and once I get there, show me the cache! But thats ME. The great thing about caching, is there is something for everyone. There are caches for families with small children. There are caches for disabled people. there are caches for people who think nothing of a 40 mile hike with 40lbs on their back. There are caches that can only be accessed by climbing up, or repelling down, a mountain. And there are caches for people who enjoy a good puzzle. Some people spent hours looking up maps, reference books, internet searches, trips to the library, etc to log a cache. Some people drive to a park and walk 200ft along a paved trail. Is one person less of a cacher then the other?

My find numbers don't mean a dadgum thing to anyone but me. Only I know how many were challenging, what sort of accomplishment I felt after logging the finds. Each person should go out and do the type of caches that makes them feel good about geocaching, and stop worrying if other types meet their guidelines of legit.

So, in case you didnt get it, I have no problems with ANYONE logging ANY TYPE of cache that is approved.

Illegitimus non carborundum!

[/list

March 21, 2002

Gosh oh golly, is there such a thing as "a legitimate find or log"? Are we talking laws and rules and such? Who's making the rules or laws? Who's been hurt or damaged in some way by an "illegitimate" find?

Then there's this cheating thing.

As far as I knew the only thing referred to as cheating is when you activate the "hint" link. So who's being cheated, eh? How did some body "cheating" at geocaching rip you off, hmmmmm?

1.1k · March 21, 2002

Geo Leo: I'll bite.

I have no problem with them logging virtuals in cyberspace. I choose not to and they do. So flipping what. If that is all the more effort they want to put into learning something that somebody else thinks is worth learning, who losses the most? If the cache owner is not gripping and has not establised some sort of control key word or phrase that needs submitted in order to log a cache, then they must not be too worried about whom from where logs in as a find. Along the same line, is it sporting to go online to find out any information other then what the cacher puts in the report? I have solved a couple puzzle caches involving dates without going to the location for the dates. No, They where not virtual caches and yes there was a log book to sign. But I did most of the cache from my butt in front of the computer.

If this is a problem with the cache owners, why not put out a micro cache having within it some sort of information that can not be found on the web? If not a micro cache with data, a close by fire hydrant number or power pole number, how many doors in the business across the street, what kind of tree growing near by, how many picnic tables in a 100 foot radius, what color is it. Man, there must be a thousand ways to control a "found it" posting. In the end, it all comes down to what the cache owner wants to accept. Valid find or deleted log.

And yes, in my opinion, you did accuse them of cheating, just not in so few words. Have you

e-mailed them and asked how they do so many in such a short time? Maybe they are mega rich and have a heli and buzz around and just drop in from a zipline. If they are and do, Hell, I will invite them over for dinner and learn how they got the money and they can have all the caches they want.

Rant # 2 over.

Preparing for # 3 if needed

March 23, 2002

Geo Leo:

When I first read your post, my immediate reaction was that I agreed with you. Right off the top, I concluded there was no way someone could log this many. Then I thought, well, someone could fake alot of visits to virtual caches. But I suppose what constitutes a log to a VC is determined by the person who lays the cache or the person who logs it. Up until today, I didn't believe that a cache was found until you were actually pysically standing at the coords. But that's me.

Overall, my thoughts were that if someone wanted to falsely log a cache ( by my defintion of a false log that is), it his/her loss. I'm not in competition with anyone. I like geocaching probably for the same reasons as most: it's hi-tech fun, it takes me to places that I haven't been before, it's good exercise, etc. etc.

I doubt I would have bothered to raise the point as you did. However, I don't blame you for doing so, as my gut reaction was the same. When I notice that someone has logged a large amount of finds, I immediately think 'what an experienced and dedicated cacher'. Had I have seen a user with 600 plus logs, I would have instead raised an eyebrow.

I then continued to read the other replies to your post. I was a little dissappointed to see tempers starting to flare (when I first came to the geocaching forum, I posted a message about how civil everyone seems to be - unlike so many other forums), but I also 'read' a lot of good points I wouldn't have arrived at one my own.

For all I know, someone out there might really like to be involved in geocaching but is confined to a wheel-chair or is 80 years old. Some of these VCs may be the only types of caches they can 'hunt'.

I went to make a coffee and pondered some more. I came back and read some of the finds the cacher in question made. They sound nice and good intentioned. It was obvious to me that this person(s) didn't actually visit these places - at least not on the same day - but really, what do I care? what business is it of mine anyway?

I thought some more about this idea of 'arm-chair caching'. I had never even realized the idea of doing a search on the net to answer a clue for a cache. What's so bad about it anyway? My last day of geocaching didn't go so well and the weather here sucks totally today. One of the worst days of winter came on the first day of spring. I'm anxious to do some geocaching, but I really don't feel like being outside today. I'm thinking about doing some virtual caches. I think I'll start by doing the one's Cooper has done - they're to far for me to drive to anyway. Why don'y you consider doing the same?

BTW, you can always log your visits by saying it was a 'virtual find'. Ha Ha.

MajBach

You can't have everything.

where would you put it?

March 23, 2002