Jump to content

Cheating


Web-ling
Followers 0

Recommended Posts

I recently deleted a couple of logs on my virtual caches where the cacher basically admitted they had not physically visited the site. The cacher re-posted the logs. When I received an inquiry as to why they had been deleted, I responded with

quote:
This is the second email I've sent you on this subject.

 

Did you PHYSICALLY visit any of my virtual caches you have logged ON THE DATE you claim to have visited them, or did you simply do an internet search for the answers? If you did not PHYSICALLY VISIT THE SITE, your logs should be deleted.

 

I suspect you did not for the following reasons:

 

 

Simply put, I think you are logging virtual caches from the comfort of your PC without actually physically finding them simply to pad your numbers. If I am incorrect, I appologize, please set me straight. If I am correct, please delete your logs on all of my caches that you did not physically visit.

 

If I do not receive a confirmation email from you that you did indeed PHYSICALLY VISIT the caches, I will delete your logs. Other owners may not mind cachers padding their stats with false find logs, but I do.

 

Web-ling


 

His response:

quote:
I have been to the caches that I have logged on your pages. I have been to the dallas caches and most of the austin caches. Yes I do log some caches that I have never been to, BUT I have the correct answer and to find that sometimes takes more work then visiting the site. Most virtual caches are to get people informed about something that happened or a place. If I do a virtual cache and learn about an area I am doing the same thing short of being there. But I can understand your views on this too. I have been to most like I said I will not log any of yours in the future if you want it that way but I stand behind my previous logs.


 

What would you do with the cacher's logs?

 

25021_1200.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Web-ling:

Did you PHYSICALLY visit any of my virtual caches you have logged ON THE DATE you claim to have visited them, or did you simply do an internet search for the answers? If you did not PHYSICALLY VISIT THE SITE, your logs should be deleted.


 

IMHO, the answers for the virtual cache should be the only proof required that the cacher visited the site. Perhaps you should consider changing the verification question. Maybe add a question about a nearby object.

Link to comment

Delete it, leave it, it really doesn't matter as this person has validated the action to themselves, and you won't change the way they look at it. To me if someone cheats, it's totally thier loss not yours. Does it hurt you if they log a find on your cache? No, it hurts thier character. You tried to do the right thing and ask them if they had been to the sites, and they replied yes and no. If you delete it and they repost it what will you do then?

 

Later,

TikimanHSA (Hunter)

Link to comment

I'd have no problem deleting a log when the cacher admits not physically visiting the site. In the big picture, it probably doesn't matter - the cacher will just leave out that little bit of info in future logs. But at least you don't have a big ''I CHEATED'' log on the cache page. Changing the verification requirement to something else might be a good idea.

Link to comment

I'd have to agree with Jeremy ... although I'd still delete them and I'd also change the verification needed to confirm the cache visit ... something more concrete ... maybe a photo at the site.

 

Must be nice to be able to impress yourself with your own lies icon_biggrin.gif

 

Go figure ....

 

348_2702.gif

Link to comment

I'd have to agree with Jeremy ... although I'd still delete them and I'd also change the verification needed to confirm the cache visit ... something more concrete ... maybe a photo at the site.

 

Must be nice to be able to impress yourself with your own lies icon_biggrin.gif

 

Go figure ....

 

348_2702.gif

Link to comment

Unless you require that a visit to the area is necessary to log a find then by answering the question they fulfilled the requirements. While I don't agree with that method of logging caches I can see how others may feel they have done what was needed.

 

You may want to add some type of question that only a physical visit will answer. Such as approximate height, color of pavement under area and any number of other verification questions.

 

By the way the word "cheating" is rather strong. There are no prizes for logging the most caches. It's tough to be a cheater if there are no winners.

 

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

As always, the above statements are just MHO.

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

 

39478_400.jpg

Link to comment

I have a feeling that I know who this is. This person, who seems to be active in your area, logged a couple of virtual caches up here in the Northwest recently that were obvious forgeries. One was for a "locationless" cache, and the photo that he uploaded had been taken directly from a web page easily found on Google. The cache owner promptly deleted that log and edited the cache description to say that he would not accept such logs.

 

I know that geocaching is a game, and that to an extent we should each play it in the manner that we see fit as long as our actions don't negatively affect someone else, but I have a hard time turning a blind eye to "cheating." For one, it goes against the basic grain of what the activity is about -- using your GPSR to get out and physically visit interesting locales. If we don't try to keep this basic guideline intact, the activity becomes meaningless and we descend toward a sort of anarchy.

 

That said, I think that cache owners who care about keeping the finds logged against their caches "pure" need to make sure that the means they use to verify finds on their virtual caches are loophole-free. The verification should, by necessity, require a physical visit.

 

24_700.gif

Link to comment

as others have said, include some criteria that makes it necessary to actually go to the location. Posting a photo which includes the geocacher and his/her GPSR is a good one. E-mailing the geocache owner with the answer to a question that can only be answered by visiting...these have already been suggested. They are GOOD ideas and prevent bozos like Drago..., er anyone, from posting bogus finds.

 

These are the same kind of geocachers who try to steal your really cool cache ideas without doing any of the work themselves.

 

Yeah, yeah, live and let live, yeah, yeah. icon_razz.gif

 

Seth!

Link to comment

as others have said, include some criteria that makes it necessary to actually go to the location. Posting a photo which includes the geocacher and his/her GPSR is a good one. E-mailing the geocache owner with the answer to a question that can only be answered by visiting...these have already been suggested. They are GOOD ideas and prevent bozos like Drago..., er anyone, from posting bogus finds.

 

These are the same kind of geocachers who try to steal your really cool cache ideas without doing any of the work themselves.

 

Yeah, yeah, live and let live, yeah, yeah. icon_razz.gif

 

Seth!

Link to comment

I guess my vote here will be a little unpopular. I voted to "leave" the log for this simple reason. There are some people out there that can not physically reach caches. Either they have a physical disability or some other reason they cannot reach a cache. For some people it may very well be cheating, for others it is the only way they can play the game. I personally have never logged a cache I haven't visited. (Although, I did spot a yellow jeep the other day and I am thinking about going back and taking a picture if it is still there in front of the house) icon_cool.gif So, my vote is leave it and don't worry about the numbers.

Link to comment

I guess my vote here will be a little unpopular. I voted to "leave" the log for this simple reason. There are some people out there that can not physically reach caches. Either they have a physical disability or some other reason they cannot reach a cache. For some people it may very well be cheating, for others it is the only way they can play the game. I personally have never logged a cache I haven't visited. (Although, I did spot a yellow jeep the other day and I am thinking about going back and taking a picture if it is still there in front of the house) icon_cool.gif So, my vote is leave it and don't worry about the numbers.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by McIrish:

 

I guess my vote here will be a little unpopular. I voted to "leave" the log for this simple reason. There are some people out there that can not physically reach caches. Either they have a physical disability or some other reason they cannot reach a cache.


 

If that is the case, they should clearly state so in the confirmation email. I think it's terrific if the disabled want to look up stuff on the computer and log virtuals. Fine by me!

 

Otherwise, to the physically lazy and limb-endowed rest of us, FIND THE DANG THING! Back in my January Cheaters

thread, I complained that people were actually placing trade items where the cache 'should have been' (funny - the one to which I refer, the dude was like 300 yards away!) then logging it as a find. Some locals log them as a find when they can't find it because they are not interested in looking for it for whatever reason, and they don't want it on the first page of their 'closest caches' page.

 

People say numbers don't mean anything. Yes, it's just a game, but so is the SuperBowl, Stanley Cup, World Series, etc. Just because it is all for fun doesn't mean it can't be competitive. My friend and I are neck in neck and I'll pull ahead, then he will.

 

Someone tell Stayfloopy or Hawkeye that numbers don't matter. They have earned their stature and rightfully so.

 

I'm not into giving armchair cachers that kinda regard.

 

There is no million dollar prize, but it's OK to be competitive.

 

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

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

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Moun10Bike:

... logged a couple of virtual caches up here in the Northwest recently that were obvious forgeries. One was for a "locationless" cache, and the photo that he uploaded had been taken directly from a web page easily found on Google. The cache owner promptly deleted that log and edited the cache description to say that he would not accept such logs.


 

While I support the owner's right to delete fraudulent claims, it appears that in many similar instances, cache owners had not stated that a physical visit to their cache was required. Therefore, if the answer provided was correct, the claim was legitimate, and the cache owner would be wrong to delete it. (I am not suggesting that a fraudulent photo is acceptable "proof.")

 

That's why it's incumbent upon cache owners to think things through before submitting a cache for approval.

 

quote:
Originally posted by Moun10Bike:

 

That said, I think that cache owners who care about keeping the finds logged against their caches "pure" need to make sure that the means they use to verify finds on their virtual caches are loophole-free. The verification should, by necessity, require a physical visit.


 

I agree with you 100 percent.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

While I support the owner's right to delete fraudulent claims, it appears that in many similar instances, cache owners had not stated that a physical visit to their cache was required.


 

Personally, I don't believe that it should be necessary to state this. In fact, I believe that the reverse is true -- that requiring a physical visit is the default, and that "armchair" logs are only permitted if the cache owner explicitly states that they are (as in the case of the "Radio K.A.O.S." cache, for example). After all, that's what geocaching is about -- using your GPSR to navigate to a location to which the owner wishes to send you.

 

24_700.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Moun10Bike:

 

Personally, I don't believe that it should be necessary to state this. In fact, I believe that the reverse is true -- that requiring a physical visit is the default, and that "armchair" logs are only permitted if the cache owner explicitly states that they are (as in the case of the "Radio K.A.O.S." cache, for example). After all, that's what geocaching is about -- using your GPSR to navigate to a location to which the owner wishes to send you.


 

I happen to agree with that notion, but some obviously would not. A "default" necessitates a rule (or "guideline") that is accepted and enforced consistently by cache owners.

 

Apparently, that isn't happening.

Link to comment

I voted 'delete them' on the poll, but I've changed my mind. You already deleted them once.

 

Maybe I'm a bit of a hard liner. It's your cache, and if you feel that an actual visit to the site is the only way to log a find, then that settles that.

 

Since this person insisted on posting another log after you explained and you deleted it, I'd suggest another tack. Post a note on the cache page log, explaining that this person hasn't visited the site, that you deleted the log, that they *reposted* the log, and that you feel this is cheating. Let the weight of public opinion rule. If they're fine with their behavior, they should have no problem with it being made public in this way. If they're not fine, they can delete the log themselves, at which point I'd suggest you delete the note.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Web-ling:

I recently deleted a couple of logs on my virtual caches where the cacher basically admitted they had not physically visited the site. The cacher re-posted the logs....


 

Would you rather be right or happy?

Since the cacher has already reposted on your cache and responded to you, there isn't much point in getting into a post/delete battle. It's just a game and the finder has definded it differently than you have. Prehaps you could edit your cache details to more clearly define what you consider to be a find.

Link to comment

In yahoo auctions you can blacklist someone so they never again bid on one of your auctions. That's what you need for this guy. If he can't follow the rules, he can't participate (officially) in your Caches. Delete the log and state that he is now excluded from any and all of your caches. Then have fun with the delete function, until we get a blacklist feature.

 

That of course is a lot of work and this is all on the honor system. The only person I've had who didn't do a log right deleted themselves and then got it right. Just state clearly what it takes to log a find and let the honor system work. In the end that is even more important than using the delete function.

Link to comment

i say leave it. if he wants to be a cheat then let'em cheat. this is a fun sport, not a contest. some people cant get through life any other way.

 

i personally dont care much for my find numbers. i always sign the log and always make a web entry. i have too much else going on to get into any form of "who found more" contest.

 

urbo

icon_wink.gif

Link to comment

i say leave it. if he wants to be a cheat then let'em cheat. this is a fun sport, not a contest. some people cant get through life any other way.

 

i personally dont care much for my find numbers. i always sign the log and always make a web entry. i have too much else going on to get into any form of "who found more" contest.

 

urbo

icon_wink.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Kodak's4:

 

Since this person insisted on posting another log after you explained and you deleted it, I'd suggest another tack. Post a note on the cache page log, explaining that this person hasn't visited the site, that you deleted the log, that they *reposted* the log, and that you feel this is cheating. Let the weight of public opinion rule. If they're fine with their behavior, they should have no problem with it being made public in this way. If they're not fine, they can delete the log themselves, at which point I'd suggest you delete the note.


That's pretty much what I've decided to do. Plus, I'm going to re-write my verification webpage to make it harder to hack.

 

25021_1200.gif

Link to comment

I recently found that a log on my cache was put on the computer, but there was no log in the notebook, nor was any description or items they took written on the computer log for my cache. HEre is a message I sent:

 

quote:
Hey there, (name deleted)...How goes it? REgarding the Woodland Stash Cash... I noticed that you filled out the log on the computer and did not say what you took, nor did you log your cache into the notebook I left in my cache.

 

I love people trying to find my cache and if they need help, I'll be happy to help them out with hints. I don't want to make accusations, but I would like some sort of proof my cache was found so that I can leave the log on the site... It's not you... it's just that I'm a stickler for that kind of thing. There has been a large number of people claiming caches that have not actually done them to raise their numbers.

 

To me, Geocaching is not about numbers (obviously... look at my stats). It is about having fun while being true to other members of the community. I'm just being cautious because the geocaching community is that of high quality, and I want to ensure everyone who visits my caches has a good experience and doesn't mistake it for another cache.

 

If, for some reason, it was accidentally logged (perhaps you thought it was a different cache or something), let me know and I'll leave the log on the site with the provision that you visit it within a set amount of time OR I'll take it off my cache page.

 

I hope you have a great week and happy hunting!


 

So they people don't feel ashamed, I'm not going to tell which one it was, nor will I update this forum in the reply... but I feel this is a tacktful way of dealing with possible cheaters and gives them an opportunity to correct their errors, if they have indeed made one. icon_wink.gif

Link to comment

I recently found that a log on my cache was put on the computer, but there was no log in the notebook, nor was any description or items they took written on the computer log for my cache. HEre is a message I sent:

 

quote:
Hey there, (name deleted)...How goes it? REgarding the Woodland Stash Cash... I noticed that you filled out the log on the computer and did not say what you took, nor did you log your cache into the notebook I left in my cache.

 

I love people trying to find my cache and if they need help, I'll be happy to help them out with hints. I don't want to make accusations, but I would like some sort of proof my cache was found so that I can leave the log on the site... It's not you... it's just that I'm a stickler for that kind of thing. There has been a large number of people claiming caches that have not actually done them to raise their numbers.

 

To me, Geocaching is not about numbers (obviously... look at my stats). It is about having fun while being true to other members of the community. I'm just being cautious because the geocaching community is that of high quality, and I want to ensure everyone who visits my caches has a good experience and doesn't mistake it for another cache.

 

If, for some reason, it was accidentally logged (perhaps you thought it was a different cache or something), let me know and I'll leave the log on the site with the provision that you visit it within a set amount of time OR I'll take it off my cache page.

 

I hope you have a great week and happy hunting!


 

So they people don't feel ashamed, I'm not going to tell which one it was, nor will I update this forum in the reply... but I feel this is a tacktful way of dealing with possible cheaters and gives them an opportunity to correct their errors, if they have indeed made one. icon_wink.gif

Link to comment

I dunno about deleting a log on a regular cache just because they didn't sign the physical log or describe the contents of the cache.

 

Yesterday, I went out to find Gangster’s Final Hideaway, and was approached by the caretaker at the location, indicating that it was closing time. I didn't have time to write in the log book and replace the micro-cache, so I chose the latter. When I do find the second stage of the micro-cache, I will log this as found. But in the interest of saving the cache, I didn't sign the logbook.

 

I'm not going to be able to log this as found? Sounds a little harsh.

 

Remember, we are all working on the honor system here. If someone says TN/LN, I trust them.

 

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

 

Point B:

I really think that you need to visit a virtual cache to be able to log it as found. Otherwise it's just a library search. When we found Circus History on Sunday, I had read up on Showmen's Rest and knew the history. Nothing could compare to actually going to the site of the cache and seeing the numerous gravestones marked "unknown male." 86 is just a number unless you see the 86 gravesites.

 

Just my ramblings.

 

Markwell

My Geocaching Page

Link to comment

Quotes from FAQ page:

- GPS users can then use the location coordinates to find the caches.

- Virtual caches - .... You have to answer a question from the landmark and let the "cache" owner know ''as proof that you were there''.

 

I’m amazed that anyone can believe it’s okay to log a find on a cache that they haven’t been to. It seems so obvious that it doesn’t need to be mentioned. Something like the catsup bottle that says, ‘’Open before pouring’’.

 

In regards to this quote: ‘’cache owners had not stated that a physical visit to their cache was required’’.

I’m not sure I’ve seen any cache pages that specifically require a physical visit. So, to carry that line of logic further – if it’s not required on the cache page, I don’t have to do it, therefore I don’t really need to go to most caches to log the find. If I start logging now, I wonder how long it’ll take to get up to 16k?

Link to comment

For me the answer is very straight forward.

1. If you don't want anyone to log a virtual cache without physically visiting, require them to email you with an answer that they could have only found at the location.

 

Example. I placed a virtual cache in Dallas and within days I had several logs from those whom had not actually visited the site and complaints from others who disapproved of me allowing these logs to remain. I edited the cache and required proof of visit questions from that point forward.

Dallas: "Number One"

 

txjacksons.gif

Link to comment

Hey MArkwall... I like your site you posted in the other forum. Anyway, you wriite:

quote:
I dunno about deleting a log on a regular cache just because they didn't sign the physical log or describe the contents of the cache.

 

but here is the thing... if they want to e-mail me and say, "Hey... I took this that was in the cache" or "to get to your cache I had to... (and there IS something you have to do to get to my cache)," that would be fine. I don't mind logging it myself. But if they canot substanciate their claim, it would be because they were not there and I don't want a log on my cache that is not honorable. If they want to log phoney caches, they had better do someone elses site... not mine.

 

In addition, the idea of a virtual cache is a joke. Geocaching is about using a GPS to find the location. People make it so easy that half of the time you don't need one, but I don't. If you want to geocache, get a GPS. If you want to sit and play on the computer, get a keyboard. But pick one.

 

TO compare, iIf you wanted to be an astronaut, you go into space or walk on the moon. You don't go on the internet, look up pictures of the moon or outer space and say, "I'm an astronaut - I was on the moon and outer space." And some people are able to do it and some aren't. It's the cruel reality of the world.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by markusby:

 

In addition, the idea of a virtual cache is a joke. Geocaching is about using a GPS to find the location.


 

When I found the Sultan of Swat virtual cache using my GPS, I wasn't geocaching?

 

I used my GPSr

I found a location

It was a great location

 

Some great cache locations are not great locations for a cache.

 

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

As always, the above statements are just MHO.

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

 

39478_400.jpg

Link to comment

Although I am not a big fan of virtual caches, there are many places that are just not suited to tupperware. A virtual cache can be a good way to bring people to a spot they may never have visited otherwise. However if the cache page says that you need to supply some bit of info to the cache placer to prove that you visited the cache, then it should be up to the placer to make the required password or info unfindable without a visit. It should also be up to them to decide whether a log is valid or not. Remember what Drew Carey says on Who's Line Is It Anyway, "The points don't really matter".

Link to comment

If you are certain that the person did not physically visit the cache, then why not modify your cache description to include the following:

 

"NOTE: As you all know, merely posting the answer is not enough. You must physically visit the cache. XXXX posted a find on X X, 2002 but he did not visit the cache. I have privately brought this to his attention, but he refuses to remove his find log. To assist me in reprimanding him, would you kindly go to his find log and stick your tongue out at it for ten seconds. Thank you. (this note will remain here until his find log is removed)." icon_wink.gif

Link to comment

If you are certain that the person did not physically visit the cache, then why not modify your cache description to include the following:

 

"NOTE: As you all know, merely posting the answer is not enough. You must physically visit the cache. XXXX posted a find on X X, 2002 but he did not visit the cache. I have privately brought this to his attention, but he refuses to remove his find log. To assist me in reprimanding him, would you kindly go to his find log and stick your tongue out at it for ten seconds. Thank you. (this note will remain here until his find log is removed)." icon_wink.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by seneca:

"NOTE: As you all know, merely posting the answer is not enough. You must physically visit the cache. XXXX posted a find on X X, 2002 but he did not visit the cache. I have privately brought this to his attention, but he refuses to remove his find log. To assist me in reprimanding him, would you kindly go to his find log and stick your tongue out at it for ten seconds. Thank you. (this note will remain here until his find log is removed)." icon_wink.gif


 

That's really funny. Made me laugh... but I don't know how appropriate that would be to make public with someones name on it.

 

See... if you did that to me, I would be amused. However, I've visited every cache and signed every logbook that that my finds indicate. If I were a person that posted false finds, I probably wouldn't find that post directed at me so funny.

 

Come to think of it... I did once log a find for a 3-part multi where I skipped the middle part. Instead of going to the location to find the clue, I figured out the information from the hints given in the first cache. See, it told me I needed to go to the second location to find a six-digit number. I was supposed to use this six-digit number to calculate the coords for the last part of the multi. Instead, I figured out what the coords should be by mathematically testing every six-digit number that was applicable. The owner thought it was quite a clever solution. I skipped the second part and logged the cache as a find, so go ahead and make fun of me. icon_razz.gif

 

Jamie

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by seneca:

"NOTE: As you all know, merely posting the answer is not enough. You must physically visit the cache. XXXX posted a find on X X, 2002 but he did not visit the cache. I have privately brought this to his attention, but he refuses to remove his find log. To assist me in reprimanding him, would you kindly go to his find log and stick your tongue out at it for ten seconds. Thank you. (this note will remain here until his find log is removed)." icon_wink.gif


 

That's really funny. Made me laugh... but I don't know how appropriate that would be to make public with someones name on it.

 

See... if you did that to me, I would be amused. However, I've visited every cache and signed every logbook that that my finds indicate. If I were a person that posted false finds, I probably wouldn't find that post directed at me so funny.

 

Come to think of it... I did once log a find for a 3-part multi where I skipped the middle part. Instead of going to the location to find the clue, I figured out the information from the hints given in the first cache. See, it told me I needed to go to the second location to find a six-digit number. I was supposed to use this six-digit number to calculate the coords for the last part of the multi. Instead, I figured out what the coords should be by mathematically testing every six-digit number that was applicable. The owner thought it was quite a clever solution. I skipped the second part and logged the cache as a find, so go ahead and make fun of me. icon_razz.gif

 

Jamie

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Jamie Z:

 

Come to think of it... I _did_ once log a find for a 3-part multi where I skipped the middle part. Instead of going to the location to find the clue, I figured out the information from the hints given in the first cache. ... I skipped the second part and logged the cache as a find, so go ahead and make fun of me. icon_razz.gif


 

Why? You found the main cache and signed the log, therefore the find is legitimate. It appears the cache placers weren't as clever as they thought. There are several similar multicaches in NJ, where the coordinates for the main caches can easily be deduced by visiting just 2 stages of 4 stage multicaches.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Jamie Z:

 

Come to think of it... I _did_ once log a find for a 3-part multi where I skipped the middle part. Instead of going to the location to find the clue, I figured out the information from the hints given in the first cache. ... I skipped the second part and logged the cache as a find, so go ahead and make fun of me. icon_razz.gif


 

Why? You found the main cache and signed the log, therefore the find is legitimate. It appears the cache placers weren't as clever as they thought. There are several similar multicaches in NJ, where the coordinates for the main caches can easily be deduced by visiting just 2 stages of 4 stage multicaches.

Link to comment

BP,

 

I equated my experience to someone who "finds" a virtual cache online.

 

The cache hider designed the cache so that a person would (normally) have to visit three sites, but instead of going to one of them, I sat in front of my computer and used my head and Excel to figure out where the final cache was.

 

It's scarily similar to someone using the web to find the info necessary to log a virtual.

 

In any case, I retro-actively went to second leg location just to check it out.

 

I'm not a big fan of virtuals that can be logged from home, so I was a bit hesitant to use my Excel method to figure the coords for the final cache, but after discussion with the owner, I decided it was acceptable.

 

Jamie

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Jamie Z:

BP,

 

 

The cache hider designed the cache so that a person would (normally) have to visit three sites, but instead of going to one of them, I sat in front of my computer and used my head and Excel to figure out where the final cache was.

 

It's scarily similar to someone using the web to find the info necessary to log a virtual.

 

In any case, I retro-actively went to second leg location just to check it out.

 

I'm not a big fan of virtuals that can be logged from home, so I was a bit hesitant to use my Excel method to figure the coords for the final cache, but after discussion with the owner, I decided it was acceptable.

 

Jamie


 

Sometimes a cache owner can miss the fact that what they using to verify that someone has actually visited the site is able to be found through an internet search.

 

For example a cache that I made is located here in Sicily and it has to be a virtual. I did a quick search using google for the information that I was asking for. The names on the memorial. I didn't come up with anything so I thought it was safe to ask. The cache reviewer also did a search but he used some of the text from the memorial and found some web pages with pictures of the memorial and you can clearly see the names.

Also if I the same search was done at Yahoo it wouldn't return anything.

 

My suggestion to anyone placing a virtual cache. Do a search at a place like www.dogpile.com that searches multiple search engines and search on many different terms in many different ways. If you still can't find the info your looking for then your virtcache answers are safe. At least for a little while.

 

- Lone Rangers

Link to comment

icon_eek.gif His logs must be deleted. Geocaching is a game, and like any game we have rules, and without rules there is no structure, and without structure there is no point. Our finds are our scores, they reveal accomplishments, triumphs, and hard work.....they are earned by all of us and therfore are more than just numbers...I say kick him out.....

-Sherlock=

Link to comment

icon_eek.gif His logs must be deleted. Geocaching is a game, and like any game we have rules, and without rules there is no structure, and without structure there is no point. Our finds are our scores, they reveal accomplishments, triumphs, and hard work.....they are earned by all of us and therfore are more than just numbers...I say kick him out.....

-Sherlock=

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 0
×
×
  • Create New...