Bogus Finds - A way to stop them, WOW!

[+Waterfall]

RE - Bogus Cache Finds:

 

Ok as all of you might or might not know I started a topic about a fellow Geocacher and some remarks He/She made.

 

That is now behind us (I Think), after reading what has turned out to be “Me smacking the hornets nest” it has brought up something that I never new happened.

 

I did not think anyone would “Post a Find” even though they have never even been out to that cache site just to make His/Her profile better. WOW to think that you can travel 1200 miles in 5 ½ hours and find 125 caches, I want you to come to my kid’s party in your Superman outfit.

 

OK to the point.

Jeremy don’t get mad at me making you work harder, but what if you had a verification number issued to the cache holder when that cache was approved. That number would then be placed inside the Log book, Written on the Cache or other obvious means of the Finder seeing that number. It would work kind of like the travel bugs number.

 

To log a find you MUST have the verification Number that was issued to the cache owner. “WoW why did I not think of this?”, I will also contribute $100.00 to Geocaching.com if you will institute this check and balance system. I will also help you raise any needed monies or people with coding skills to make this happen.

 

What a great improvement to Geocaching this would be.

 

This is a starting point to stop the BOGUS Finds. PLEASE Ring in with any and all comments, suggestions that you are willing to put forward to make this happen. It will make this a better sport for all..

 

Mark.

 

[umc]

I don't think that would be a great improvement yet make things a bit more difficult all the way around. The system that is in place works pretty well and I don't think that adding this verification system would be a cure all.

 

The system that is in place is the fact of having a logbook in a cache. It is up to the cache owner to make sure that the logs online are valid against the logs in the book. Its quick and painless.

 

Remember how they logged all of the TBs? The took one number and added to the count to log the next one and so on. With your proposed system I think the same would be possible.

 

If someone wants to cheat, let them, they are the one losing in the end.

 

__________________________

Caching without a clue....

[+ApK]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Waterfall:

What a great improvement to Geocaching this would be.

---

 

I can't say I'd see it as any improvement whatsoever, but merely one more thing to obsess over.

 

I care not a whit about how many finds other people claim.

 

Just out of curiosity, why do you?

 

ApK

[+Geofool]

I believe this has been discussed before. What would keep people from trading the numbers or them being posted somewhere on the Internet. It would not work. IMHO

 

********************************************

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

 

[+Waterfall]

Being fairly new at this I think "Out of the Box" at times. You know the new person that joins your company and will show the obvious even though it is not. Ruffel the feathers ect.

 

You are right it is up to the cache owner to do self policeing but I just had an idea.

 

Oh NO I see this is going to get me flushed for shure.. SORRY, It was just an Idea.

 

 

[+SamLowrey]

quote:

---

Originally posted by umc:

I don't think that would be a great improvement yet make things a bit more difficult all the way around. The system that is in place works pretty well and I don't think that adding this verification system would be a cure all.

 

The system that is in place is the fact of having a logbook in a cache. It is up to the cache owner to make sure that the logs online are valid against the logs in the book. Its quick and painless.

 

Remember how they logged all of the TBs? The took one number and added to the count to log the next one and so on. With your proposed system I think the same would be possible.

 

If someone wants to cheat, let them, they are the one losing in the end.

 

http://www.mi-geocaching.org/

__________________________

Caching without a clue....

---

 

Although I have never logged a find that I did not sign the log on, I can envision situations where that might happen (like when there are too many muggles around, but you can see the cache) I didn't know they were supposed to verify it, though.

[+SamLowrey]

Just curious - why is everyone jumping on his case saying it will not work? It will work. Just like our Social Security system, it is not infallible - nothing is. That is no reason to dismiss the idea.

[+Geofool]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Waterfall:

Being fairly new at this I think "Out of the Box" at times. You know the new person that joins your company and will show the obvious even though it is not. Ruffel the feathers ect.

 

You are right it is up to the cache owner to do self policeing but I just had an idea.

 

Oh NO I see this is going to get me flushed for shure.. SORRY, It was just an Idea.

 

 

http://www.mi-geocaching.org/

 

It was a good idea, don't freak. It would just cause more work and in the long run be ineffective.

 

********************************************

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

 

[umc]

quote:

---

Originally posted by SamLowrey:

Although I have never logged a find that I did not sign the log on, I can envision situations where that might happen (like when there are too many muggles around, but you can see the cache) I didn't know they were supposed to verify it, though.

---

 

Its the cache owners option to to verify the logs if they want.

 

What you mentioned about logging a find even though you couldn't get to the cache to sign it because there were too many people around hits home. I was at a cache recently that is in the middle of a very public place and I had no way to get to it even though I spent a little more than an hour on the previous stages and about an hour or so waiting for a chance on the final. I could see it but couldn't get to it without giving it away and having it plundered.

 

I wanted to log a find since I put in the time but I didn't feel right about it so I logged a note stating the obvious to others so that they could go in the off hours so they didn't have the same experience as I. Thats the price we pay, I guess.

 

__________________________

Caching without a clue....

[+Sissy-n-CR]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Waterfall:

Being fairly new at this I think "Out of the Box" at times. You know the new person that joins your company and will show the obvious even though it is not. Ruffel the feathers ect.

---

 

It's been thought of and heavily discussed before just like GeoFool said.

 

In short, it would only add complexity that would not cure the problem. In fact, it has the potential of making it worse.

 

CR

 

[+jasonhuber]

I dont think it will work, but it wasnt a bad idea.

 

If you are concerned then you could at least implement a similar idea in your logs. Just assign each log a specific number, then each person who visits the log must increment the number by one and email you the number. To know the next number you must visit the log. It is part of the deal no number or the wrong number I delete your entry!

 

This has also been accomplished here in AZ with a list that must be checked off once by each visitor. You then include the list item in your posting. This has an end to it, the number do not.

[+SamLowrey]

quote:

---

Originally posted by umc:

 

What you mentioned about logging a find even though you couldn't get to the cache to sign it because there were too many people around hits home. I was at a cache recently that is in the middle of a very public place and I had no way to get to it even though I spent a little more than an hour on the previous stages and about an hour or so waiting for a chance on the final. I could see it but couldn't get to it without giving it away and having it plundered.

---

 

Yeah, when it comes down to it, I probably wouldn't log it even if I did just see it. I would probably just post a note, too.

[ChiefPig]

Nothing wrong with his idea. If we are doing it for TBs, why not the actual cache which are as important as the TBs. Getting the "secret code" in a cache to log it makes it more "official", I think.

[+cachew nut]

It's a good idea, but probably won't happen. We had a guy here who put code words into his micros for verification, you had to email the code word to him to keep your log from getting deleted.

 

Another geocacher couldn't find them, and started complaining about micros and code words and code word verification was quickly squashed. Luckily, micros are still allowed.

[+Renegade Knight]

"I would of logged your cache today but I had a bust in my verification code. The one I wrote down was a cache in BFE. Please email me your code so I can log the cache. Thanks"

 

Had I driven 200 miles to have to type that up, I'd be annoyed some small amount. It happens and it's why I don't do Multi's if I have to drive a long distance. Something can and will go wrong.

 

What if they find the containers remains log etc. but not the code?

 

Good idea, not as praticle to implement as it might seem at first glance.

[+Greenback]

The registration number sounds about right to me. GC charges us $5 for each one and you have to have that registration number to log a find on GC. So basically we pay a fee to post a cache on the web page.

[+Geofool]

Greenback, did you forget to take your medication today?

 

********************************************

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

 

[+Sissy-n-CR]

Look, static cache codes will not work. Nobody wants to have to do two forms of verification and if codes were implemented, people would question why they had to sign the logbook. If the logbook isn't required to be signed, then there is no verification of a visit other than the code. Friends could pass the code around and log the cache even though they didn't visit the cache and there would be no way to dispute it. Websites could spring up listing cache/code combinations. Yes, it could happen with TBs and I'm a little surpised it hasn't yet. But you have to remember, cache finds are much more valuable than TB finds.

 

Incremental numbers: if it's automated, how are you going to keep it straight? What if someone logs out of order?

 

Random word/number lists: how are you going to keep someone from copying the list and passing that out?

 

Like RK said, not as practical as it might seem at first glance.

 

CR

 

[+Geofool]

Personally I wouldn’t want to have to keep track of number. I may forget to write it down or lose the number before I log my find online. It would be a headache for me.

 

********************************************

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

 

[+jollybgood]

It could certainly work. No dobut about that. It's just a matter of programming the website to handle it. Basically the same system used with logging Travel Bugs. You need the number in order to gain access to the TB's page for logging purposes. In this case you would need the cache's unique serial number to log your find.

 

I could live with such a system if it was ever put in place but I guess my question is, Why go to the trouble?

 

I think the system works fine like it is. Ultimately the logbook in the physical cache is the proof you were there.

 

I'm not sure why it needs to be made more complicated.

 

Jolly R. Blackburn

http://kenzerco.com

"Never declare war on a man who buys his ink by the gallon."

[+jollybgood]

quote:

---

Originally posted by GeoFool:

Personally I wouldn’t want to have to keep track of number. I may forget to write it down or lose the number before I log my find online. It would be a headache for me.

 

********************************************

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

 

http://www.chicagogeocaching.com/img/logo_small.jpg

---

 

I hear ya. I'm a flake. I'm so forgetful I've left my GPSr at the cache site and gotten all the way back to my car before realizing my mistake.

 

One visited the same cache twice during the same week from opposite directions. Didn't even realize I'd been there already til I opened the log book and saw my name. No joke.

 

I can just see myself trying to sort out my notes and match serial numbers with caches.

 

Is that a 1 or a 7?

 

Jolly R. Blackburn

http://kenzerco.com

"Never declare war on a man who buys his ink by the gallon."

[+Greenback]

The only real question I have here is... who really goes out and audits their caches? I don't, I've pulled caches and replaced log books and gone through them but I didn't audit them. The log book is a GC requirement but no one audits it so what exactly is the point?

 

Oh, and I visited a cache over the weekend with someone else who hadn't found it before. My signature wasn't on the log sheet and I didn't sign it Saturday either. If an audit were done then my find would be deleted. But then stats don't count so what does that matter?

[+2CacheSharks]

We are fairly new to this, and have less than 10 finds. I have logged our finds, but to be honest, I never even looked at anyones stats to see how many finds they have. It really doesn't matter to me either way. They could have 1 or 1000. No difference to me. If people want to add false logs to drive up their stats, there probably isn't a lot that can be done about that, but then again who really looks at those numbers. If someone is doing this, it sounds like they have some issues going on.

 

We used to be directionally challenged, now we have a GPS, and are high-tech directionally challenged. At least now we know where we are when we are lost.

[+Sissy-n-CR]

Full audit? Like going out with a printout of the cache page and comparing one-to-one? No, I haven't.

 

But I have questioned questionable finds and asked the logger to change their online log based on what I found in the logbook.

 

If the site is going to allow logging and keep track of finds, then you should at least keep the records as straight and honest as possible. Otherwise, what's the point?

 

CR

 

[+Cooter13]

Granted the idea may not work, but they offered a solution to an issue instead of just complaining. It may not work, but I will commend them for offering a solution to a complaint rather than just complaining.

 

See the happy moron

He doesn't give a da**

I wish I were a moron

My God, perhaps I am

Author Unkown

[+Renegade Knight]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cooter13:

Granted the idea may not work, but they offered a solution to an issue instead of just complaining. It may not work, but I will commend them for offering a solution to a complaint rather than just complaining...

---

 

Well said. Very true.

[+woodsters]

Yes it's been discussed. i remember talking about it a couple weeks ago. I'm all for it. If someone wants to cheat with the numbers, what is going to keep people from doing it now? Half or more of the cache owners do not check their log books anyway or at least often. The question was brought up by someone about they didn't see the use in the logbook. Technically they are right if a cache owner is not checking it. Many people here on the forum stated they did not want to even check their logbooks with the online logs. So I don't see the big deal of implementing a system that could work. I would also agree about the payment system to place caches like a travel bug system. Might stop some people doing a drop and run and never maintaining the cache. People will figure a way to cheat just as cache owners will not take proper care of their caches. Now way around it. But it is a good way for Groundspeak to generate soem revenue and perhaps pay their volunteers back with something. It's at least a thought.

 

Brian

 

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

[+southdeltan]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sissy-n-CR:

Look, static cache codes will not work. Nobody wants to have to do two forms of verification and if codes were implemented, people would question why they had to sign the logbook. If the logbook isn't required to be signed, then there is no verification of a visit other than the code. Friends could pass the code around and log the cache even though they didn't visit the cache _and there would be no way to dispute it._ Websites could spring up listing cache/code combinations. Yes, it could happen with TBs and I'm a little surpised it hasn't yet. But you have to remember, cache finds are much more valuable than TB finds.

 

Incremental numbers: if it's automated, how are you going to keep it straight? What if someone logs out of order?

 

Random word/number lists: how are you going to keep someone from copying the list and passing that out?

 

Like RK said, not as practical as it might seem at first glance.

 

CR

---

 

It's a well intended idea - and on the surface it appears like one that would solve a lot of problems - but I think CR has exposed some major problems with this suggestion.

 

It is up to the cache owner to verify logs. If you find a log you doubt - email the cache owner with your concerns.

 

southdeltan

 

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

[+SamLowrey]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly B Good:

 

One visited the same cache twice during the same week from opposite directions. Didn't even realize I'd been there already til I opened the log book and saw my name. No joke.

---

 

That's almost as funny as that story where you started walking through the swamp/pond and got to the other shore with the young family staring aghast at you (that was you, wasn't it?) That story cracks me up when I think of it.

[Bender]

I go caching for my own enjoyment. I do not care what other peoples' profiles look like. Let em log every cache in the world, it won't bother me in the least. Who cares what the other guy does? Not me, this game is about getting my large posterior off the couch.

 

Bender

 

Searching, for the lost Xanadu

[+Xitron]

A little scary I agree with bender. I'm still new at this but this is how my opinion changed in just two months. When I first heard of Goecaching I wanted to just go out and find caches. When I started reading the boards I wanted stats. Now I'm bored with stats and just want to go find caches. If someone wants to cheat and record a bunch of caches he never did, so what, who's he hurting?

[+Waterfall]

Xitron - I agree with you 100%. I started this sport because I loved the idea. Then I started to look at stats, that is what I have been doing in the last week or so...

 

Now I am starting to say lets just have fun doing what we love to do. Getting outdoors with my Wife and girls and spending quality time together.

 

Who really cares about the stats lets enjoy this sport for what it is. FUN...

 

I still dont think it would be a bad idea... and once again just a thought.

 

Mark.

 

[+Breaktrack]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Waterfall:

Xitron - I agree with you 100%. I started this sport because I loved the idea. Then I started to look at stats, that is what I have been doing in the last week or so...

 

Now I am starting to say lets just have fun doing what we love to do. Getting outdoors with my Wife and girls and spending quality time together.

 

Who really cares about the stats lets enjoy this sport for what it is. FUN...

 

I still dont think it would be a bad idea... and once again just a thought.

 

Mark.

 

http://www.mi-geocaching.org/

 

Hey, the idea had merit, this time as well as the other times it's been brought up. Unfortunately it doesn't really solve the problem it was meant to.

 

No one should have any problem with people coming up with ideas though, I know I don't. Keep it up, you never know when one of them will be the one we're looking for.

 

"Afghanistan was a battle. Iraq was a battle. The war goes on."

[M15a4spr]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly B Good:

...I hear ya. I'm a flake. I'm so forgetful I've left my GPSr at the cache site and gotten all the way back to my car before realizing my mistake.

 

One visited the same cache twice during the same week from opposite directions. Didn't even realize I'd been there already til I opened the log book and saw my name. No joke...

---

Now THAT's funny

[+Perrin]

Who cares if they are cheating to make themselves look better? I only care if some one is cheating if I am actually competing against them. Since I'm not competing against any of my fellow cachers, I think that the idea of a verification number isn't really necessary.

 

Now if some one posts a find on my cache and I don't see their name in the log book when I do a maintenace run... well then they can kiss their "find" good-bye.

 

"Sometimes you are a very large fool Perrin Aybara. Quite often in fact." Annoura Sedai (Book Nine of The WoT)

[+Xitron]

A few times I've been with a group that found a cache. A few times my name was not written in the log book. Does that mean I wasen't there and did not do the cache? There was one cache I did the bugs were so bad all I did was open the cache throw the loot in and run like hell. The cache police need to lighten up, who cares how many caches someone has, is it a race?

[+briansnat]

quote:

---

Who cares if they are cheating to make themselves look better? I only care if some one is cheating if I am actually competing against them. Since I'm not competing against any of my fellow cachers, I think that the idea of a verification number isn't really necessary.

---

 

If I see a recent find and spend my limited time looking for a cache that was long gone, because someone posted a fake find, I'd care.

 

"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

 

[This message was edited by BrianSnat on September 16, 2003 at 03:40 AM.]

[+JMBella]

We each need to police our own caches if we feel it's nessessary. If you wish, add a serial number to your caches and make people email you the number. Again, friends can tell each other what the # is for the cache. Personally I don't think it's gotten to that point yet and hopefully never will. I plan on sticking with the honor system. For now.

 

Two roads diverged in a wood, and I-

I took the one less traveled by,

And that has made all the difference.

Because now I am Lost.

[+jollybgood]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Greenback:

The only real question I have here is... who really goes out and audits their caches?

---

 

You'd be surprised. I used to toss my buisness card in the cache as my way of logging my visit.

That soon stopped. Several cache owners compared the names in the log with the online log and deleted my finds. I had to go back AGAIN and physically sign the logbook.

 

I learned the hard way. So yes, some cache owners DO take the time to do audits.

 

Me? I have not interest in doing so.

 

Jolly R. Blackburn

http://kenzerco.com

"Never declare war on a man who buys his ink by the gallon."

[+jollybgood]

quote:

---

Originally posted by BrianSnat:

quote:

---

Who cares if they are cheating to make themselves look better? I only care if some one is cheating if I am actually competing against them. Since I'm not competing against any of my fellow cachers, I think that the idea of a verification number isn't really necessary.

---

 

If I see a recent find and spend my hard earned time looking for a cache that was long gone, because someone posted a fake find, I'd care.

 

_"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_

---

 

I hear what you're saying. And I've heard this argument before. But there's something I never understood. If someone logs a bogus find on a cache that is in fact missing -- wouldn't it be missing anyway?

 

Meaning, if the bogus find was never logged you would STILL go to hunt for the cache based on the LAST (legit) find only to find it's missing.

 

See my point? I really don't understand how a fake find changes anything. Unless it was a cache reported missing and the fake find claims it's still there.

 

Jolly R. Blackburn

http://kenzerco.com

"Never declare war on a man who buys his ink by the gallon."

[+jollybgood]

quote:

---

Originally posted by SamLowrey:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly B Good:

 

One visited the same cache twice during the same week from opposite directions. Didn't even realize I'd been there already til I opened the log book and saw my name. No joke.

---

 

That's almost as funny as that story where you started walking through the swamp/pond and got to the other shore with the young family staring aghast at you (that was you, wasn't it?) That story cracks me up when I think of it.

---

 

Yeah that was me. (groan). Are you telling me NOBODY else has done that? ;D I was just out at the same marsh the other day looking for another cache. THIS TIME I walked around it.

 

Jolly R. Blackburn

http://kenzerco.com

"Never declare war on a man who buys his ink by the gallon."

[+JMBella]

Someone logged FTF on one of my multi caches (saying TNLN). The next person that logged it said they where the first to sign the log book. I let it go, but it's probably irresponsible of me. Mainly because they cheated the next cacher out of a First to Find. Should I delete the log?

 

Two roads diverged in a wood, and I-

I took the one less traveled by,

And that has made all the difference.

Because now I am Lost.

[+Sissy-n-CR]

quote:

---

Originally posted by J&MBella:

Someone logged FTF on one of my multi caches (saying TNLN). The next person that logged it said they where the first to sign the log book. I let it go, but it's probably irresponsible of me. Mainly because they cheated the next cacher out of a First to Find. Should I delete the log?

---

 

The first to log online is not the same as the first to find the cache. I'd say the first person in the log is the First Finder.

 

Well, I just thought of something. If someone who claims to have found the cache but didn't sign the log, yet can come up with the FF prize, then that's proof enough, too.

 

CR

 

[+woodsters]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly B Good:

I hear what you're saying. And I've heard this argument before. But there's something I never understood. If someone logs a bogus find on a cache that is in fact missing -- wouldn't it be missing anyway?

 

Meaning, if the bogus find was never logged you would STILL go to hunt for the cache based on the LAST (legit) find only to find it's missing.

 

See my point? I really don't understand how a fake find changes anything. Unless it was a cache reported missing and the fake find claims it's still there.

 

---

 

I believe what Briansnat was referring to, is that the cache could be missing. If someone is logging it as found online and it's really not there, then it can really mess up someones day trying to find it. But, even if the bogus online logger never made his mark on it and it was missing, yes it would still be missing and someone would have a messed up day either way. I think the online logs play a big part for the cache owners as far as maintenance. I do believe that the online logs shouldn't be used solely for maintenance though.

 

Although some people don't care if one cheatsand makes bogus claims, there are many others who do. Same as the stats thing. Some want them, some don't or don't care. I believe the cache owners should play their role to the higher extent to please the majority. Meaning that I know there are going to be people who care about bogus finds that come to my caches, I should then at least attempt to police my own caches to a reasonable point for those people. For the people who don't care about them, then it really makes no difference if I do or don't. That way both are happy. I think an occasional visit to the cache with a printout of the visitors and checking the log with it, is not too much to ask for.

 

Just as some cache owners has expressed that they don't intend to police their caches, I think another form of verification helps assist the cache owners. Yes it could be cheated with the numbers being given out. But it would make no difference to the cache owner who doesn't care either way. To the cache owner who does care, they will still police their caches. It won't be any worse, it could make it better. If someone is getting the code and logging bogus finds, then you can determine that one of the previous cachers passed the info on, if they logged their find.

 

Brian

 

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

[+SamLowrey]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Breaktrack:

Hey, the idea had merit, ....

---

 

AND he offered seed money. I thought that was pretty cool.

[+OneOfEm]

"After a very pleasant hike, I found the cache without too much trouble. I have to say that this location is amazing. I've lived here my whole life, and never knew this was here. What a view! TN, left blood sample, right thumbprint, and hair sample for DNA testing."

 

[+Breaktrack]

quote:

---

Originally posted by OneOfEm:

"After a very pleasant hike, I found the cache without too much trouble. I have to say that this location is amazing. I've lived here my whole life, and never knew this was here. What a view! TN, left blood sample, right thumbprint, and hair sample for DNA testing."

 

---

 

Hehehehe, now you're talking my language...LOL.

 

"Afghanistan was a battle. Iraq was a battle. The war goes on."

[+JMBella]

Originally posted by Sissy-n-CR:

 

Well, I just thought of something. If someone who claims to have found the cache but didn't sign the log, yet can come up with the FF prize, then that's proof enough, too.

 

CR

They TNLN.

 

Two roads diverged in a wood, and I-

I took the one less traveled by,

And that has made all the difference.

Because now I am Lost.

[+SamLowrey]

quote:

---

Originally posted by OneOfEm:

"After a very pleasant hike, I found the cache without too much trouble. I have to say that this location is amazing. I've lived here my whole life, and never knew this was here. What a view! TN, left blood sample, right thumbprint, and hair sample for DNA testing."

 

---

 

I don't want to encourage anyone leaving DNA evidence - we already have a problem with a "nude cacher."

[+JNJWalla]

I've been traveling for my work a lot lately.. when I got stuck in a remote area this last week, I decided to make a run to a cache that I previously found to look at the logbook. There was supposed to be one more recent log in the book, but it wasn't there. I'm not the cache owner.

Should I be concerned? Is there anything that can be done? My partner says that it's something that the bogus poster will have to live with.