Why do virtual caches require verification?

[+IndyMagicMan]

The virtual caches I have looked up require the finder to e-mail the 'hider' with some sort of 'proof' that you were there. Why?

 

If the reasoning is so someone doesn't fake a visit, that reasoning is very flawed. Visiting a regular cache and not signing the log seems perfectly acceptable, and I doubt the hiders go back and confirm every single entry anyway.

 

I guess it's not a big deal for most people, but why have this extra pointless step for virtuals? I'm grateful you gave me an interesting (hopefully) new place to visit, and enjoy using this site to log and track where I have been for my own records, but why do I need to e-mail you?????

[+woodsters]

I believe the reasoning is to keep tabs that you were actually there. If not, then people would be logging virtuals, that they never found. Also you would get a lot of people trying to make virtuals as well. It's bad enough if a virt owner does not even check their email and verify the find.

 

As far as visiting a regular cache and not signing the log is acceptable, then that depends. Are they not signing the online log or the real paper log? If they are not doing the online log, I really don't find that as big of a deal as not signing the paper log. AS someone stated once before, the paper log was in effect long before the online logging was made available. The online log is really only to keep up with your find count as well as letting the owner know you found it. It's courtesy to do both. But at a very minimum you should be logging the paper log. That proves you were there.

 

Emailing the owner of a virtual and giving the required info is like signing the paper log. If you were to go to a regular cache and there was no log, and the owner never made sure there is one there, then they are not maintaining their cache. Same as a virtual, if the owner is not verifying the finds via email, then they are not maintaining their cache. Otherwise caches would be pointless. Don't do them if you don't want to follow what is required.

 

Brian

 

As long as you're going to think anyway, think big. -Donald Trump

[umc]

You're right, it's so nobody fakes a find. A traditional cache does have a logbook in it like you mentioned, thats your proof on the trad. The fact of the matter is that when I do maintenance on my cache if I see a log on the cache page but not in the logbook then I CAN delete their log. Its not "perfectly acceptable" to log on the site and not in the logbook of a physical cache.

 

I don't like the email concept on virtual caches and thats why I use something a little different. You can find examples at my 3rd cache and I used the same concept at my 5th cache. So far its worked out well.

 

__________________________

Caching without a clue....

[+The Irish Pirates]

Like you said, I guess because there are some that try to increse the numbers by faking. That's why I take pics of every cache I go to. No questions about it.

 

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Cache me out dammit, I'm in a hurry!

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

I'm a great believer in luck, and I find the harder I work, the more I have of it.

-Thomas Jefferson

[+woodsters]

Personally I think the email system is the best way. It requires some effort from the owner. Virtuals would be stupid if there was no real verification to them. I think that once you find the virtual and obatin the info needed to verify that you email it to the owner. Then they should reply to you and tell you if you are correct or not. To me it's courtesy. If someone takes the time to go after a cache of yours, then the owner could at least take a minute to email them back and say "That's correct, go ahead and log your find". If a couple weeks go by and there is no response from the owner, then I would go ahead and log it and make mention on my online log that you never heard back. Then after there are several logs like that, then someone should suggest it for archival as the owner is not maintaining their cache, which is required.

 

I say if you can't do that, then don't own one.

 

Brian

 

As long as you're going to think anyway, think big. -Donald Trump

[Keystone]

Wow. Woodsters really summarized that well! I would add that some virtual owners don't mind if you log your find first and then send the e-mail. They would delete a log if the e-mail never got sent or if the answer was wrong. This might be a regional thing.

 

The approvers are asked to check the verification questions, to make sure that the answer can't be found through a simple search on Google. We are able to get quite a few of them. Just about every historic marker, statue or monument has its picture somewhere on the internet. Recently I had a virtual where there were six verification questions and I found the answers to 4.5 of them. It got approved It is a shame that people fake finds. It is a lot of time for honest cache owners and cache finders, as well as time for the cache approver upfront.

 

--------------------

Don't mess with the frog.

[georapper]

i set up virtual caches so that i don't have to tend the emails. the cacher will download the directions for logging the cache, then all i have to do is look at the log, if the cacher did not follow directions for logging, i can tell just by reading the logs and delete those logs that did not follow directions.

 

if you don't want to verify that you were at a location, then don't do the virtual. some virtual caches don't require anything, those are the virtuals you may be after.

 

there has been some discussion about separating virtual caches from physical caches, much the same way benchmarks are separate from caches.

 

i think it's a good idea.

 

Creativity Within The Bounds Of Conformity

[+briansnat]

quote:

---

Visiting a regular cache and not signing the log seems perfectly acceptable, and I doubt the hiders go back and confirm every single entry anyway.

---

 

Not signing the paper log isn't acceptable and many cache owners will delete finds that don't have a corresponding log entry. Sometimes owners will give some leeway. For instance, if the finder forgot to sign the log, but is well know in the local geocaching community and a rep for being honest the owner will let the online log stay. Or if the paper log simply can't be signed because its soaked.

 

On the other hand, if the person has a lot of questionable finds, sometimes an owner will go out to the cache specifically to check for a paper log entry.

 

"You can't make a man by standing a sheep on his hind legs. But by standing a flock of sheep in that position, you can make a crowd of men" - Max Beerbohm

[+parkrrrr]

Not to start Yet Another Stats Flamewar, but if the position of TPTB is that numbers don't matter, why should they care if a few idiots fake their finds on virts? It's not like the average virt is going to disappear, so the argument that it fools the cache owner into thinking the cache is okay isn't quite as powerful. Even if the virt does disappear, of course the cache owner checks on it now and again anyway, even without the intermittent not-found and should-be-archived logs he'd be getting, so the worst a fake find can do is delay the inevitable. Beyond that, I can't think of any reason why anyone but the finder should care whether he actually went there.

 

[georapper]

should virtual be separate from real caches?

 

Creativity Within The Bounds Of Conformity

[+WildcatRegi]

I only have one virtual and all I look for are answers to specific questions being emailed to me at the same time they log their find.

 

I don't feel a need for them to wait until I give them permission before they log the find but I do check to make sure I've received an email from anyone who has logged a find online.

 

If I don't get an answer, I'll email them directly and wait a few days. If I still don't get the answers, I delete the find, thankfully, I've only had to delete one entry.

 

Did the 'finder' not remember the answers or were they caught claiming a false virtual - who knows?

 

"The hardest thing to find is something that's not there!"

[+woodsters]

I don't think that every virt owner checks on their virts physically to make sure they are still there. It's obvious that people will go through virt after virt and can tell who is verifying and who isn't. I don't think it's a matter that numbers don't matter to TPTB, but more of they don't the hassle of those who are offended by the numbers game and being included in them. That's why the suggestion of Jeremy about opting in to it was brought up, or at least the way I interpret it. You can't please everyone. So, if you can give more without offending a number of them, then go for it. But if it's all or nothing, then nothing will win. Kind of like if one person says no, then we aren't going to do it. I agree that the numbers are interesting to watch. Sometimes their is weight thrown with the numbers, that shouldn't be. Especially to the newer crowd. I have to admit that in the last couple of months it has been more pleasurable on the boards as people are actually trying to help some of the newer people.

 

But fake finds do matter to me. Especially if the numbers do mean something to me. I don't people who cheat. I don't like people who inflate their numbers as to make them look like more of a player. Heck, I have all the time in the world. I could easily sit here all day and do that. After all if I were to cheat, I not only cheat myself, my fellow cachers, but also the cache owner who takes the time to search out these places. My feeling is a cache owner shouldn't cheat his finders as well. Especially when it comes to virts. It's not like you are bombarded with 100's of emails a day. People probably get more spam mail each day than they would of people wanting to verify their find. If you have time to log on to geocaching.com and go to the message board and read the messages and then respond to them, then you have time to be courteous and verify a find and thank the person for finding and visiting your cache. I think email verifications should be mandatory. That way, perhaps it will derail some ideas of placing a virt and save some of the approvers time.

 

Brian

 

As long as you're going to think anyway, think big. -Donald Trump

[+Kouros]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Warm Fuzzies - Fuzzy:

Not to start Yet Another Stats Flamewar, but if the position of TPTB is that numbers don't matter, why should they care if a few idiots fake their finds on virts?

---

 

Probably because it leaves the door open for a malicious cacher to be, well, malicious. The numbers game might not matter to many, but for some it does, and having no verificatopm would allow a mean cache to log any number of caches in the pretense that he is "winning", thus spoiling the game for those who do keep count.

 

Also, although many cache owners don't care about the numbers, I know that many (myself included) care about who has taken the time to visit them, and where they have come from.

 

------

"There's Sparticus. That's him, over there."

[MOCKBA]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Warm Fuzzies - Fuzzy:

if the position of TPTB is that numbers don't matter, why should they care if a few idiots fake their finds on virts?

---

The numbers do not matter much but honesty may still matter. And I think I have a good solution how to discourage dishonesty.

Give the cache owner the option, instead of deleting what they think is a fake log, to change its type from "FOUND IT" to "DISPUTED FIND". Then show the disputed log count / link to caches on the personal stats page.

The finder should have an option of editing the disputed entry (and thus to prove one's case, or just to annoy the owner into deleting the shameful entry), but not changing its type and not deleting it for good.

Back to e-mails as a positive confirmation means for the virts. I personally think it is a lame concept. It prevents people from posting pictures, or from freely discussing their experiences about the virtuals, lest they divulge too much. In the end it detracts from the value of a virtual cache. Because the value of a cache is not just in the owner's description, but also in the impressions of the cachers who found it. And if a finder can't tell you how impressed one was with e.g. a historical site, what associations it evoked, etc., for fear of divulging spoilers ... then the value is diminished.

[georapper]

i really like the idea of a new category of find, "disputed find". should we ask TPTB to create the new find category? i think it's great.

 

Creativity Within The Bounds Of Conformity

[+woodsters]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MOCKBA:

 

Back to e-mails as a positive confirmation means for the virts. I personally think it is a lame concept. It prevents people from posting pictures, or from freely discussing their experiences about the virtuals, lest they divulge too much. In the end it detracts from the value of a virtual cache. Because the value of a cache is not just in the owner's description, but also in the impressions of the cachers who found it. And if a finder can't tell you how impressed one was with e.g. a historical site, what associations it evoked, etc., for fear of divulging spoilers ... then the value is diminished.

---

 

It's the same as regular caches, you don't give the info that will spoil it. A cache owner can require certain information from the area to agree to it as found. Is there something special in writing or possibly a number somewhere that they can see? If so then that info is given to the owner for verification. What do you do with locationless? You know what the cache is, but you find one like it and take a picture and submit like that. One I found, which ended up having a lot of controversy, was that not only did you have to tell them what was unusual, but you had to tell them what a sign said or take a picture of it. The unusual object didn't have to be seen from the coordinated provided, as it could be seen just about anywhere. The coordinates were of the sign itself.

 

Brian

 

As long as you're going to think anyway, think big. -Donald Trump

[+IndyMagicMan]

I guess people cache for differant reasons, but for me it is in no way a competative sport. So if someone else fakes thier count i'm in the 'who cares' crowd. I realize it does matter to some.

 

Buy why I bring it up is it would be just about as easy to fake most regular caches. 'Perfectly acceptable' was a poor choice in words for not signing a log, but TNLNDS is a recognized term. The DS part of this is what I refer to. You can't prove you were there if you didn't sign the log, and this is an accepted entry (I guess an owner could nuke it if they didn't it).

 

'Warm Fuzzies - Fuzzy' made me see for the first time why flase entries are bad from a cache owners perspective. You wouldn't want to see a lot of entries and think your cache is OK only to find out the last 10 visits are fakes and your cache has been missing for 2 months. But this just adds to the 'so what' for virtuals.

 

I can also see it a bit from the side of making the submitters having some level of ownership of the 'cache', and making them have an interactive part for the life of the cache may keep down on the pointless caches.

 

Thanks for the replies. I guess if I though something was cool enough to be a virtual cache I would want as many people to come and see it as possible. If the added step of e-mail (as minor as it is) keeps some people from bothering, then it is a bad thing. (yes, yes, I could still go and just not track it on this site...). On the other hand 1000's of pointless virtuals that require no tracking would not be fun.

 

IndyMagicMan

[+southdeltan]

quote:

---

Originally posted by IndyMagicMan:

Buy why I bring it up is it would be just about as easy to fake most regular caches. 'Perfectly acceptable' was a poor choice in words for not signing a log, but TNLNDS is a recognized term. The DS part of this is what I refer to. You can't prove you were there if you didn't sign the log, and this is an accepted entry (I guess an owner could nuke it if they didn't it).

 

IndyMagicMan

---

 

Does TNLNDS = Took Nothing, Left Nothing, Didn't Sign?

 

I wasn't aware this was a recognized term. I've never seen that before. As a cache owner I don't accept it. There are only a very few instances where not signing the log is acceptable (rain being one).

 

But, I guess, if numbers don't matter - proving you were there doesn't matter - so maybe signing logs doesnt matter. Nah..... I don't buy that.

 

southdeltan

 

"Man can counterfeit everything except silence". - William Faulkner