Virtual proof

[+Big Tom]

I have a virtual cache in Colorado that you are supposed to post a picture of yourself at the cache as proof. A handful of people have not posted pictures so I e-mailed them and said that I needed a picture or I would have to delete them.I got a reply from one of them stating that if I started deleteing finds I would be talked bad about in the forums and nobody would go to my cache, so I sent another e-mail stating that I would not delete anybody. Was I wrong for asking people to follow the rules of the cache.

Big Tom

[+Marky]

I think it is the duty of the owner of the virtual cache to delete any entries that don't meet the requirements, just as a physical cache owner might delete any online finds if they didn't sign the physical log book. It's the equivalent to physical cache maintenance. If owners of virtuals didn't do this, then virtuals would be pointless. I might even talk bad on the forums about someone who *didn't* delete the entries.

 

--Marky

"Everyone spends time in the darkness, dreamers learn to steer with a backlit GPSr"

[+infosponge]

I wish more people would enforce the requirements of their virtual / locationless caches. I see logs that look bogus or don't have the required photos all the time. You are perfectly reasonable to delete finds after a period of time if they don't have the required photo.

Some people may have trouble getting photos online, so you may wish to ask them a few questions about the area to get a feel for the legitimacy of the find if they say that can't post a photo.

At any rate, stand your ground and don't let someone intimidate you away from being a responsible cache owner!

[+briansnat]

Your cache, your rules. Go ahead and delete them if you want. The people logged the cache knowing what the rules were and didn't follow them. If it were my cache however and they provided some proof that they were there, then I would let them slide. The point of a virtual is to get someone to visit it and prove it. You have to decide whether the visitor's method of providing proof is worth starting a war over. If they can provide no proof whatsoever, then you really should delete their find and they have no right to complain.

 

Personally I don't require a photo for my virtuals, chiefly because I don't own a digital camera and it could take months before I shoot off a roll and develop it. I assume others may be in the same boat. Instead, I'll ask for other proof that the person visited. An inscription, or something that they couldn't possibly know unless they were there. If they want to post a photo as well, fine.

 

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

 

[This message was edited by BrianSnat on November 15, 2002 at 03:34 AM.]

[+jonboy]

While it is your cache and you do set the parameters, I resent when cache owners expect me to post pictures on the internet when I have neither a digital camera or the ablity to post pictures. Some cachers assume that we are all IT proffessionals with all the hightech gizmos and imply some kind of deficiency on others part if they are not. I agree that some provision should be made for those of us who lack all the expensive toys. For this reason, I do not do virtual caches.

jonboy

[+brdad]

jonboy, if you do not have the equipment to do a cache, then don't do it. Just like I can't do a scuba cache because I don't have the scuba gear & certification. It's views like yours that support a world of 1/1s. Are we supposed to resent ALL cache owners because some cachers may not have the equipment of ability? I think maybe if some virtuals were made harder by requiring longer distances, special equipment etc., maybe they would be respected more.

 

I'd say if the cache page says pictures, then that's the way it should be. Or, email the cache owner ahead of time and ask if he is willing to provide an alternative way for you to provide proof. Don't go first, log and expect him to go along with it afterward.

 

To answer the original question, you might consider emailing them, asking them to post a pic, or if they can otherwise prove their visit another way that may be acceptable. Otherwise the post goes.

 

Just because the GPS knows where it is does not mean you do!

[BassoonPilot]

Hey brdad, you should check into the difficulty and quality of the caches jonboy has placed and chooses to seek before you suggest that comments like his lead to cache mediocrity ... you're way off base here.

 

I agree that a photo is a welcome addition to any virtual cache, but there should be an alternative form of verification for people who, for whatever reason, do not possess a digital camera (or possibly a scanner.)

 

Geocaching is supposed to be about getting people outdoors, not about purchasing every new techno toy.

[+Alan2]

I don't carry my heavy film camera most of the time (don't have a digital) and appreciate it when hiders allow alternative methods of proof.

 

ALan

[+brdad]

quote:

---

Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

Hey brdad, you should check into the difficulty and quality of the caches jonboy has placed and chooses to seek before you suggest that comments like his lead to cache mediocrity ... you're way off base here.

---

 

I didn't mean it quite the way you read it and everyone else probably will. It had nothing to do with the difficulty of his hides, or his preference in finds. I'm was just observing that his comment (" I resent when cache owners expect me to post pictures on the internet when I have neither a digital camera or the ablity to post pictures.") may make new virtual hiders think that a picture could be asking for too much, when there are traditional caches that require a lot more expensive or extensive equipment.

 

As far as pictures though, it's not that hard. Buy a cheap disposable just for the virts and have Wally World put them on disk..... If you're in a hurry to post, usually you don't even have to use the whole film up, just take the last few pics in total darkness, most places only charge for the pictures that come out.

 

Just because the GPS knows where it is does not mean you do!

[+Planet]

And since Tom's first note to the cache saying "Hey, you guys aren't posting pictures", almost everyone has and most of those who haven't state they don't have the technology or the film isn't processed yet. I have been relying on a film camera and my scanner forever and just went out and got a digital and the darned program doesn't let me move pictures out of it unless I spend another $20 bucks to upgrade it. Ttepee is going to come and try to help me with the dilemma, but in the meantime I will rely on film. I just developed 8 rolls the other day and some were from last spring. So, I totally agree with BasoonPilot that there should be another method of proving you were there for the technically challenged. I don't think someone should NOT do a cache if they don't have the equipment, that wouldn't be fair, or fun. Especially in a spot as special as this one.cache in question

 

Cache you later,

Planet

 

Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

[+briansnat]

quote:

---

It's views like yours that support a world of 1/1s.

---

 

Actually, most of these virtual caches seem to be 1/1's. The digital camera seems to be more responsible for the proliferation of these 1/1's than any argument jonboy made aginst them.

 

I think he has a valid complaint. Not having a digital camera myself, its pain for me to get a photo to post. I think any reasonable proof of your visit should be enough to log a virtual.

 

And jonboy is far from a 1/1 geocacher. His stated preference is for good long hikes. Though I've yet to find one of his caches, he has an excellent rep around here for placing quality

caches. Caches that are something more than the 'walk 100 yards from the parking lot and find the tupperware under the sticks' variety of caches.

 

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

[+briansnat]

Besides we all know how easy it is to fake a photo, as we saw in this

thread.

 

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

[Tahosa and Sons]

I've seen the Cache that is in question, haven't gone there because I didn't have a camera. Someday when I go to the Park, I'll take a camera along.

I run into the deletion thing quite a bit, for I have several virtuals in Loveland. Some finds just simply said found it at 6:15 and I knew the requirements were not met. So off goes an EMail then on goes the deletion button.

Its up to the Cache owner, you created it with certain goals in mind and if mindless cachers looking for a quick count just lay claim, then

de-claim the cache.

 

Tahosa - Dweller of the Mountain Tops.

[+wcgreen]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jonboy:

While it is your cache and you do set the parameters, I resent when cache owners expect me to post pictures on the internet when I have neither a digital camera or the ablity to post pictures. Some cachers assume that we are all IT proffessionals with all the hightech gizmos and imply some kind of deficiency on others part if they are not. I agree that some provision should be made for those of us who lack all the expensive toys. For this reason, I do not do virtual caches.

jonboy

---

 

I fail to see how requiring a photo to log a virtul cache implies anything about you or anyone else.

 

That Saks requires more money for a coat purchase that K-Mart does not imply that you (or anyone else) are poor.

 

--

wcgreen

Wendy Chatley Green

[+Marky]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jonboy:

While it is your cache and you do set the parameters, I resent when cache owners expect me to post pictures on the internet when I have neither a digital camera or the ablity to post pictures. Some cachers assume that we are all IT proffessionals with all the hightech gizmos and imply some kind of deficiency on others part if they are not. I agree that some provision should be made for those of us who lack all the expensive toys. For this reason, I do not do virtual caches.

jonboy

---

 

That's like me saying that I don't have a kayak, so there shouldn't be any caches that require kayaks. Some caches have requirements that we aren't willing to meet. We don't do those. End of story.

 

P.S. Santa, I want a kayak for Christmas.

 

--Marky

"Everyone spends time in the darkness, dreamers learn to steer with a backlit GPSr"

[+Kodak's4]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big Tom:

I have a virtual cache in Colorado that you are supposed to post a picture of yourself at the cache as proof. A handful of people have not posted pictures so I e-mailed them and said that I needed a picture or I would have to delete them.I got a reply from one of them stating that if I started deleteing finds I would be talked bad about in the forums and nobody would go to my cache, so I sent another e-mail stating that I would not delete anybody. Was I wrong for asking people to follow the rules of the cache.

Big Tom

---

 

Well, send them back some email, and tell them that if they don't post the picture RIGHT AWAY, not only will you delete their log, but you'll also post their identity in the forums, where their reputation will be trashed permanently.

 

And then, when they don't post the photo, post the identity and trash their reputation.

 

They deserve it.

 

[+Sissy-n-CR]

A photo should not be necessary. Not everyone has a camera. It'd be much easier to find something at a spot so the finder can email the cache owner, maybe a word on a sign. You could even write a word somewhere in the environment and the finder has to find it and email it to you.

 

But, if you're going to make people jump through hoops, then why not make them stand on their head, be naked, or flip you the finger when they photograph themselves?

 

You're the cache owner, you can make them do whatever you wish.

 

CR

 

[+Web-ling]

As has been said previously, it's your cache, do what you want with it. If you require a photo, then feel free to delete logs without photos. If you will accept other means of verification, then state so on your cache page. Whatever you decide, post it on the cache page, then enforce the standard by emailing those who don't meet the requirements, then deleting the logs if you have to.

[+Majormd&PUNditOK]

quote:

---

That's like me saying that I don't have a kayak, so there shouldn't be any caches that require kayaks. Some caches have requirements that we aren't willing to meet. We don't do those. End of story.

---

 

Nope. It's more like asking for a picture of you and your kayak at a cache you can wade 25 yards downstream to get to.

 

There is nothing wrong with having difficult caches that require special equipment. Heck, you have to have some basic equipment (a GPS receiver) to participate at all. But while there are spots on this planet which truly require a kayak to get to, requiring a photo (for most virtual caches) is unnecessarily excluding a large number of cachers from a cache. They can get there; they can appreciate the significance of the location, and have a pleasurable experience but not log it just because they don't have the technology or don't want to risk damaging any camera they do have taking it out caching. Establishing a requirement that demands equipment not necessary to get there sounds like geek snobbery to me.

 

I can imagine that there might be a few places where a few questions could not reasonably prove one's having been onsite. But it does seem like quite a few virtual caches could be served just as well by some clever questions. I realize there are already a lot of categories of caches, but perhaps a separate category for virtual-photos only would help alleviate the frustration.

 

- Sue

[BassoonPilot]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marky:

 

That's like me saying that I don't have a kayak, so there shouldn't be any caches that require kayaks.

---

 

That's silly, of course. But I suppose your analogy would work if a hydrocache owner deleted your otherwise legitimate "find" claim should you have utilized a canoe, rowboat or rubber tube to reach the cache.

 

[This message was edited by BassoonPilot on November 15, 2002 at 03:38 PM.]

[BassoonPilot]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Web-ling:

As has been said previously, it's your cache, do what you want with it. If you require a photo, then feel free to delete logs without photos.

---

 

That's right. It's your cache; be less than reasonable if you wish ... after all, (with apologies to Dale Carnegie) who needs to win friends when it's so easy to make enemies?

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Web-ling:

If you will accept other means of verification, then state so on your cache page.

---

 

Agreed; it should be clearly stated in the cache description ... and offering an alternate means of verification is, in my opinion, the proper thing to do.

 

[This message was edited by BassoonPilot on November 15, 2002 at 04:24 PM.]

[BassoonPilot]

quote:

---

There is nothing wrong with having difficult caches that require special equipment. Heck, you have to have some basic equipment (a GPS receiver) to participate at all. ...

---

 

It's true: People keep confusing equipment needed to reach and locate a cache with something (perhaps reasonable, perhaps not) the person who 'placed' the virtual wants you to do after having legitimately reached the site. To me, that's a major difference and they are not comparable.

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Majormd:

 

I realize there are already a lot of categories of caches, but perhaps a separate category for virtual-photos only would help alleviate the frustration.

---

 

Seems to me that is basically what a Locationless cache amounts to: "Find this and send me a pretty picture."

 

I think if there is nothing interesting or unique enough about a virtual site that couldn't be verified through a few questions, the site is probably not worth the visit ... and it probably shouldn't have been approved as a virtual cache.

[+Web-ling]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Majormd:

There is nothing wrong with having difficult caches that require special equipment. Heck, you have to have some basic equipment (a GPS receiver) to participate at all.

- Sue

---

 

Does that mean that the roughly 250 caches I've found WITHOUT my GPSr should be deleted?

 

I agree, if there is another way to verify a virtual find, then requiring a photo is usually not the best alternative.

 

[Tahosa and Sons]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sissy-n-CR:

But, if you're going to make people jump through hoops, then why not make them stand on their head, be naked, or flip you the finger when they photograph themselves?

 

You're the cache owner, you can make them do whatever you wish.

 

CR

 

http://img.Groundspeak.com/user/72057_2000.gif

---

Please allow me to quote from your own background from your profile:

"--you may need more than a GPS unit to find the cache." Is this a requirement or message??

 

Tahosa - Dweller of the Mountain Tops.

[+Sissy-n-CR]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tahosa:

Please allow me to quote from your own background from your profile:

"--you may need more than a GPS unit to find the cache." Is this a requirement or message??

 

Tahosa - Dweller of the Mountain Tops.

---

 

Big difference in what's required to find the cache and what's required to log the find.

 

Isn't the whole idea of there being a log in a cache is to prove that you were there? If so, any proof you were at a virtual should suffice. All of the virtuals we've logged so far--that I recall anyway--says that we have to email a particular word from a sign or something as proof. No special equipment required.

 

CR

 

[+Big Tom]

Wow, I found a nerve didn't I?

Anyway I appreciate all imput on this both the pro and the con I like to see both sides.I will think about another way to verify the find for right now only one person said he would trash me and the majority of the people have posted.But as far as not being able to get the picture, I don't know of too many people who go to Rocky Mtn Nat. without a camera and they are bound to know someone who has a scanner so you don't need digital and some librarys have the equipment that you can use.I am not going to delete anyone because this has made me see that this should be a fun sport and if I try to make this too hard I my scare people off.

Thanks again for the imput!

Big Tom

[+briansnat]

Big Tom,

I think if you just asked for an an alternative method of verifying the cache that would work. The description of something unusual at the site, or an engraving, or maybe even a colored thumbtack on the back side of a log.

 

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

[+MaxEntropy]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marky:

I think it is the duty of the owner of the virtual cache to delete any entries that don't meet the requirements, just as a physical cache owner might delete any online finds if they didn't sign the physical log book. It's the equivalent to physical cache maintenance. If owners of virtuals didn't do this, then virtuals would be pointless. I might even talk bad on the forums about someone who *didn't* delete the entries.

--Marky

---

 

That whooshing sound that you hear is the FUN getting SUCKED right out of this pasttime.

 

Fercrying out loud, this is supposed to be fun, a game, a hobby, a pasttime. It's not competitive, nobody's life, livelyhood, or ego is at stake here. If someone wants to lie that they found a cache, who cares? They alone have to live with it and nobody else loses.

Why are the cache rule police getting their panties in a bunch over something that doesn't have the slightest effect on them?

This is supposed to be fun. If you start deleting people's logs, you're going to drive them out of the hobby. If you want to make this an elitist, competitive sport, go ahead.

[+Big Tom]

Yes I could probably do something like that, I will think on it .

Thanks

Big Tom

[+djs_111]

I do not own a digi cam however I have been able to log many V-caches by taking pix with a throw away camera ,taking it to Wal-mart and paying a $1 extra to have the pix posted online ..very simple...BTW I just posted my 1st cache, it is a V-Cache and doesn't require a picture,only the answer to a question

[+dthigpen]

Really, I was!

 

 

Doug.

[dboggny]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MaxEntropy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marky:

I think it is the duty of the owner of the virtual cache to delete any entries that don't meet the requirements, just as a physical cache owner might delete any online finds if they didn't sign the physical log book. It's the equivalent to physical cache maintenance. If owners of virtuals didn't do this, then virtuals would be pointless. I might even talk bad on the forums about someone who *didn't* delete the entries.

--Marky

---

 

That whooshing sound that you hear is the FUN getting SUCKED right out of this pasttime.

 

Fercrying out loud, this is supposed to be fun, a game, a hobby, a pasttime. It's not competitive, nobody's life, livelyhood, or ego is at stake here. If someone wants to lie that they found a cache, who cares? They alone have to live with it and nobody else loses.

Why are the cache rule police getting their panties in a bunch over something that doesn't have the slightest effect on them?

This is supposed to be fun. If you start deleting people's logs, you're going to drive them out of the hobby. If you want to make this an elitist, competitive sport, go ahead.

---

 

WHAT MAX SAID. I COULD NOT HAVE SAID IT BETTER MYSELF. THANK YOU MAX FOR BEING THE VOICE OF REASON HERE.

 

SR and dboggny.

[+yorelken]

Good comments about the fun being taken out of this sport. Why is it that doing things for "fun" always heads in the direction of competition and elitism?

[+wcgreen]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sissy-n-CR:

 

Isn't the whole idea of there being a log in a cache is to prove that you were there? If so, _any_ proof you were at a virtual should suffice. All of the virtuals we've logged so far--that I recall anyway--says that we have to email a particular word from a sign or something as proof. No special equipment required.

---

 

There are people who surf the 'Net looking for websites of places where virtuals are placed so they can glean the correct answers without actually visiting the sites themselves. This is why I run a Google search on my virtuals before posting them--I want to make certain that people who travel to the virtual get credit and the surfers can't.

 

Granted, photos can (and are) also swipped from websites and submitted as "proof" of actual visit. Of course, a comparision of the submitted photo to the Web versions can detect this scam.

 

Comparing a submitted fact to a Web-gleaned fact isn't as easy.

 

If a hider wants to only require a photo, that's fine with me. I don't carry a camera and, should I go to that cache, I'll enjoy the area for what it is without any need to chalk up another find.

 

--

wcgreen

Wendy Chatley Green

[+gobucks]

Definately! It is both elitist and competitive to intentionally fail to meet the requirements of the cache description and then expect the cache owner to defer to your version. If the finder's motivation is the experience and not the competition, why would it matter if the cache were logged as a find? I would suggest that anyone who can't or won't use a camera post their experience as a note or avoid caches with a photo requirement all together. Another option would be to create some virtual caches with their preferred requirements. Of course, then you would have to wait for the inevitable complaining from other cachers who feel that it does not exactly fit their individual needs and desires.

 

GoBucks

[Dinoprophet]

If a digital camera or scanner is considered to be required special equipment, comparable to a kayak or scuba gear, then according to the ClayJar system, the terrain for the cache should be five stars, no?

 

Mein Vater war ein Wandersmann, und ich hab' auch im Blut.

[+brdad]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dinoprophet:

If a digital camera or scanner is considered to be required special equipment, comparable to a kayak or scuba gear, then according to the ClayJar system, the terrain for the cache should be five stars, no?

---

 

I guess the ClayJar system now needs a third rating, for the difficulty of logging the find....

 

Just because the GPS knows where it is does not mean you do!

[+Alan2]

“Have you heard what happened out on the point, Jim?”

 

“Nope, I haven’t, Rick, what’s up?”

 

“Well, Jim, some poor geocacher was out there by himself trying to prove he was at a virtual. It required one picture showing the cacher, his GPS and the virtual in this case the view from the point. Well there he was trying to line-up his GPS in his left hand, the throw-away camera in his right hand facing him and his GPS and the view from the point and whoops! He took one step too far, fell off the cliff and landed in a bloody mess 300 feet below.”

 

“Oh, that’s awful.”

 

“Well not really. I hear his family’s going to sue the hider. Also, there were two cachers there while we were placing his parts in the body bag. I overheard them talking how they were going to set up a new virtual using the place the poor guy landed as the cache location.”

 

“Gee, no kidding. I wonder what kind of proof they’re going to require?”

[BassoonPilot]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan2:

... “Gee, no kidding. I wonder what kind of proof they’re going to require?”

---

 

Hey Alan, it's not too late to change the requirements of your Time Capsule - Open Cache in 5000 years" virtual to include a photo of the time capsule contents ... and the finder's gps, of course.

[+Alan2]

First BP, let me thank you for advertising my cache for me. I've run out of excuses and reasons to post that cache in the forums and I was getting a little embarrassed to do it again myself. God bless you.

 

second, there wasn't any requirements o do anything when you post your find on this cache. I onyl suggested that people post their GPS model and coordinates but that could have been faked. I thank thse whom posted their GPS showing the position but again there was not requirement.

 

However, I notice that no finds were posted since last July. If I suddenly get some Oklahoman posting a find and telling me what a grand old time he had visiting my cache in Flusghing Meadow Park, I just might have to add that picture requirement. We don't like no cheats in these parts around here

 

Let's see. A picture of the finder hopping on one leg on top of the granite cover, with the Gps in his left hand, wearing a skirt, and doing a....

 

Alan

[+sbukosky]

I don't have my own digital camera yet and have passed up some situations where a picture would be necessary. Not a big deal. Several posts mentioned this. What nobody seems to realize is that to do any geocaching, you need a computer. Nobody is whining about that. Till I get my fancy digital camera, I use my 35MM. I have to wait to use up the roll but when I get them developed, I scan the picture on the website. Most caches requiring a picture will give you a few weeks for that. Yeah, now you have to buy a scanner.

 

Steve Bukosky N9BGH

Waukesha Wisconsin

[+geospotter]

Computer, Internet access, GPS, boots, pack, gas, etc. Give me a break. You can buy a digital camera for $20.

 

If the cache hider says that a photo is required to log a find, then a photo is required to log the find. If you can't take a photo don't expect to log a find. You can still do the cache.

 

Best solution has been stated above, allow another method of verification.

[BassoonPilot]

quote:

---

Originally posted by geospotter:

Computer, Internet access, GPS, boots, pack, gas, etc. Give me a break. You can buy a digital camera for $20.

---

 

Except:

 

You don't need to own a computer or pay for internet access: one can go down to the town library (school, work, etc.)

 

You don't need a GPS. (Ask Webling ... he's in the minority, for sure, but he proves over and over again that it can be done.)

 

You don't need boots. (Stayfloopy has found over 1100 caches wearing sneakers.)

 

There's an exception to every situation ... but if folk are saving money by not purchasing any of the items mentioned above, they've got no excuse for not spending the bucks on a digicam.

[+lostinjersey]

quote:

---

That whooshing sound that you hear is the FUN getting SUCKED right out of this pasttime.

 

Fercrying out loud, this is supposed to be fun, a game, a hobby, a pasttime. It's not competitive, nobody's life, livelyhood, or ego is at stake here. If someone wants to lie that they found a cache, who cares? They alone have to live with it and nobody else loses.

Why are the cache rule police getting their panties in a bunch over something that doesn't have the slightest effect on them?

This is supposed to be fun. If you start deleting people's logs, you're going to drive them out of the hobby. If you want to make this an elitist, competitive sport, go ahead.

---

 

WHAT MAX SAID. I COULD NOT HAVE SAID IT BETTER MYSELF. THANK YOU MAX FOR BEING THE VOICE OF REASON HERE.

 

SR and dboggny.

http://img.Groundspeak.com/user/9372_2600.jpg

 

Um. Ok. So when I bottom deal during our weekly poker game (which we play for fun not for money mind you) you're gonna keep playing with me right? because it's for fun and even if I'm cheating you can still have fun right?

 

Ok, maybe that's not a perfect analogy since you're going to lose if I'm cheating whereas that isn't the case in geocaching, but here's my point:

 

If I cheat and have hundreds of finds and people think it's legit when it ain't it cheapens it for everyone. It diminshes the legit finds counts and the legit finds because we all have to wonder: did s/he really find them all or are some faked?

 

bottom line: even if you don't lose it makes all your work pointless if we can't trust it. and if someone is cheating it makes everyone a suspect. (ok, well maybe not everyone, but you get the idea)

 

William

 

 

www.gpswnj.com

[Cholo]

Maybe once a DNA sample is required, all doubts will be erased. Then again, if Johnny "Cache" Cochran gets invoved, maybe not.

 

As for competitiveness and the American male, think stock car racing. The first stock car was the last stock car.

[AZcachemeister]

I recently created Hi Jolly, GCG1HB(after some serious personal debate), a virtual that requires the finder to eMail the answer(s) to one of two questions. I also provided a link to a website with pictures and transcriptions of all plaques and signs at the site.

The first response I got was by eMail, with no log on the cache page to have to delete. The individual claimed to have 'forgotten' his cache sheets, and proceded to describe the location without answering the posted question(s). I replied that I could not allow a log, as the requirements weren't met. He answered back that 'it was OK to deny his find if it protected my integrity' and that he traveled through the area regularly.

I don't really want to be an S.O.B., but dammit proof is proof, and if you aren't prepared when you leave the house/trailer/camper/tent, you might not be successful.

Am I out of line or not?

[+TEAM 360]

No, you are not asking too much....I have a virtual that requires a pic to be attached to the on-line cache log, and so far all who have gone there have done so. If someone doesn't, then they should explain why, and it better be good. Since you already have posted a link to the area, it wouldn't be too hard to describe it without going there. I would hold out for proof. Tell the cacher that you are protecting "HIS integrity" by doing so. Your cache, your rules.

[+Breaktrack]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TEAM 360:

No, you are not asking too much....I have a virtual that requires a pic to be attached to the on-line cache log, and so far all who have gone there have done so. If someone doesn't, then they should explain why, and it better be good. Since you already have posted a link to the area, it wouldn't be too hard to describe it without going there. I would hold out for proof. Tell the cacher that you are protecting "HIS integrity" by doing so. Your cache, your rules.

---

 

After reading all the entries in this particular thread, I have to say there is a lot of animosity over something that is pretty cut and dried. If we are going to have a requirement to prove you "found" the virtual, then I believe those who voluntarily hunt the virtual should have to meet the requirements.

 

On the other hand, one of my virtuals, Pike Never Made It, was originally supposed to have one of those "answer the question from the plaque" kind of deals, but the person who eventually approved it did not want to do so with that requirement. It is a very famous spot and there was just too much info on the internet and just about every question I could think of you could get off the net. So, he suggested a picture requirement in front of the main monument and that is what I went with. Now, I was under the impression the cache owner sets the requirements, and the cache hunter meets the requirements in order to log the find. So unless I'm just being hard headed here I do not see what the problem is. If I cannot meet the requirement I do not hunt the cache. That's the bottom line. I don't see a problem and I don't see where the "fun is being sucked out" by someone insisting we all play at least by part of the rules. I'm not a stickler for much, but c'mon, if you're supposed to put up a picture, find a way, or don't hunt the cache. It's as simple as that.

 

Oh well, I'm off to bed, got to go to the event cache in Huntsville State Park in the morning.

 

 

"Trade up, trade even, or don't trade!!!" My philosophy of life.

[+JoesBar]

I've only been at this thing for a few months. I have less than 50 finds. It's not a number thing to me, I like visiting new places and I've done a few virtuals and enjoyed them.

I've been reading alot of these forums to learn what's kosher and what isn't. I think there are two things that apply here, "Your cache, your rules," and "everyone chooses which caches to find." If someone is sincere and just doesn't have a way to post a pic, then maybe you can offer another way to prove they were there. That has been mentioned above. But,they choose to go to that cache, they read the requirements before they went. You have every right to delete logs you feel are false. Someone that tries to threaten you is just immature. Who cares what their opinion is? After all, they're just cheaters.

 

Dorothy: "How can you talk if haven't got a brain?" Scarecrow: "I don't know. But some people without brains do an awful lot of talking, don't they?"