An Idea

January 9, 2004

Sense we have to have a logbook, why not assign a number to the cache when it's approved (like a TB). A finder must have this number in order to log the cache as found. That would eliminate ALL the fake finds. Unless people share the number.

1.7k · January 9, 2004

This is already being discussed over here.

January 9, 2004

Opps, I did a search and came up with nothing. Now what am I going to do with this barcade reader?

1.7k · January 9, 2004

I use mine in conjunction with Amazon's .NET service to catalog my DVD collection.

2.1k · January 10, 2004

yep it's been discussed before. I started a topic on it once several months ago I believe. You can search for "lid codes" and there should be some things under it. Just like the other thread posted above, people start posting what if's. I personally think it's good. Your not taking away any other aspect. You are adding one form of security. Of course it can be manipulated, but no more than things already are. At least I see the moajority of it for the better, than the worse.

9.4k · January 10, 2004

Here's the problem. A traditional cache uses a logbook. A microcache uses a logsheet. An ultra-micro is often times too small for a legitimate logsheet, so a codeword is used. A virtual has no logsheet whatsoever, so the codeword is something that already exists on the marker.

Geocaching.com is trying to separate traditional caches from virtuals. Using a codeword instead of a logbook blurs the line between traditionals and virtuals

2.1k · January 10, 2004

I don't think that's what he is talking about sax...he's referring to assigning a number like a TB to the caches. When you find the cache, you write down the number assigned to that should only be written on the cache (preferrably inside) and take it with you. When you go online to log the find, you have to enter the assigned number, just like a TB. Then you can log your find. It's not the ultimate security or anything, but it will cut down on people logging bogus finds. Good idea for virtuals too. Because on those, the owner would need to send the number to the finder, thus putting the owner of virts in more of a position of being involved.

There's no such thing as an ultra-micro...I've never seen one listed as such and if so, then they are not a true cache right? Using a codeword to claim a find is the same thing as a virtual.

9.4k · January 10, 2004

There's no such thing as an ultra-micro...I've never seen one listed as such and if so, then they are not a true cache right? Using a codeword to claim a find is the same thing as a virtual.

An ultra-micro is the term used to describe caches from Altoids-Strips size and smaller. It is not a size by itself, but is usually listed in the description of the cache.

Using a codeword/number to log the cache won't prove anything. The number can be passed around through emails, other message boards, etc. If this game was really about the numbers, it might matter more. I think the logbook is proof enough.

2.1k · January 10, 2004

Some have mentioned that a piece of paper can be insrerted into those smaller containers. Like I said it's not fool proof, but it does make it more difficult to log a find. Kind of like the vacation cache thing. It's just more of a hassle than anything. There are ways around it.

Perhaps they should say that a cache has to have a log book in it or it's a virtual. So if you have a container that is too small for a log, but where you can place a codeword in it, then it's a virtual. Same idea, you are giving them info you have to find or locate to claim the find...

2.5k · January 10, 2004

Using a codeword/number to log the cache won't prove anything. The number can be passed around through emails, other message boards, etc. If this game was really about the numbers, it might matter more. I think the logbook is proof enough.

The code word has an advantage over the log book. The code word could be a permanent part of the cache container. If the log book disappears or gets soaked, there goes your proof.

We had some interesting micros around here before the ban on caches without logbooks. A few hiders used to seal some items inside of pill bottles, and you had to correctly email them with the contents. You could see inside, but you couldn't open them.

Since these caches were hidden as any other cache, you still had to find them. I wouldn't call them virtuals, since almost all virtuals are in plain site, not hidden.

When logbooks became mandatory, the hider archived all of his caches. This really sucked big time since I didn't get to a bunch of them yet, and this hider was one of the few who actually would go out regularly to hide caches to challenge the rest of us.

The guidelines say to sign the book and trade items. The rule for trading is disregarded by many, and there is no effort to enforce it. I think enforcing one on a whim and disregarding the other sets a precedent to bend the rules whichever way you want.

Edit:typo

Edited January 10, 2004 by cachew nut

2.5k · January 10, 2004

Here is an example of a micro that uses the code word type verification. It also has a logbook.

There are 19 finds and only 2 logs in the book. It's pretty good evidence of what the geocaching community prefers, but rather than listen to the community, changes are made at a whim without trying to measure the pulse of those who are playing the game.

4k · January 10, 2004

Let's cut to the chase here. Who does it hurt if someone is making false logs about finding a cache? Certainly not me. I'm not in it for the numbers. I've heard a few of the people in this thread, as well as the other threads about this topic say the same thing, but when it comes down to brass tax, they are still complaining about someone "padding their numbers". So? If it's not about the numbers to you, why does it bother you that someone does that? If it's about the numbers to them, let them cheat. They are not robbing me of anything. In fact, they're probably helping by not actually going to the cache and trading a used bandaid for a set of GMRS radios. So, why does it matter to you?

January 10, 2004

I have to agree with Sparky on this. I don't care if someone is faking their finds. They're only hurting themselves by not getting to have the actual enjoyment and thrill of finding the caches. Plus, them not actually making it to the caches also keeps the stuff inside the cache out of their hands. Means more for the rest of us!

January 10, 2004

I don't want to see more rules and if anyone wants to lie about their find counts it wouldn’t affect me one way or the other.

January 10, 2004

I know if I found the cache or not and that all that matters to me. A code is just something I would have to write down to log it . Just more of a burden. Just like cheating on an exam logging a false find doesn't help one to be a better geocacher, then you are the loser for not gaining more knowledge.

38.2k · January 10, 2004

Let's cut to the chase here. Who does it hurt if someone is making false logs about finding a cache? Certainly not me.

I have to agree with Sparky on this. I don't care if someone is faking their finds. They're only hurting themselves by not getting to have the actual enjoyment and thrill of finding the caches

If someone logs a fake find on a cache that is missing,which encourages me to go out and look for a cache that is not there, then it's a waste of my valuable time. This isn't that far fetched, as a lot of people won't bother with caches, particularly remote ones, that don't have a recent find. Then someone logs a find and there is a small stampede of people going after it. Happens all the time to my caches. If that find is false and the cache is gone, that's a lot of people wasting their time.

Also how many of us have put in extra time looking for a cache because we're sure its there because someone logged a find the day before. So there you are, putting in an extra 45 minutes, or an hour looking for a missing cache because yesterday's find was fake. Ha, ha, ha the joke's on you. Very funny. I know I'd be pretty pissed if I was the victim of someone elses cheating.

Also, as a cache owner, a fake find will tell me my cache is there and OK, when that might not be the case. This could delay needed maintenance....or depending on what they wrote in their log, cause me to go out on a maint trip that is not needed.

Edited January 10, 2004 by briansnat

January 10, 2004

Let's cut to the chase here. Who does it hurt if someone is making false logs about finding a cache? Certainly not me.

If someone logs a fake find on a cache that is missing,which encourages me to go out and look for a cache that is not there, then it's a waste of my valuable time.

As an owner, a fake find will tell me my cache is there and OK, when that might not be the case. This could delay needed maintenance.

You hit the nail right on the head Brian. I went out twice looking for a cache after someone had just posted that they found it. We looked half hour each time and came up with nothing. Since my last visit 4 other cachers have had the same experience. ( No cache!) Granted we had a nice hike both times and saw some great Autumn view along the way, it still would have been nice to find the cache. I posted a no find and said I wouldn't try again until someone else confirmed it was there. It has not returned nor has the cache owner replied to emails sent to him by other cachers also looking for answers to where it is. Being dishonest about a find just ruins the game for the honest people. I don't have a lot of time to cache but when I do I would at least like to know that the logs I'm reading are legitamate and my hunt will be a positive experience.

2k · January 10, 2004

Count me as another who doesn't really care. I didn't know this was a competition. What do you win if you have the most finds?

As far as fake logs encouraging somebody to look for a cache that is not there, I'm sure this happens, but I really can't imagine it is a problem. I don't look for a cache based on when it was found last.

We don't need more red tape to cache. The use of an approver assigned number would make hiding more difficult (a hider assigned keyword wouldn't have these problems):

- hide the cache

- submit info

- wait for response to get unique id

- go back to cache and write id in log book

- email approver to activate cache

January 10, 2004

While many people don't care about the numbers, many others do. By allowing some to cheat it detracts from the game for others. Who did you put the cache out for, cachers or cheaters?

I think a main issue for trying to keep people from cheating by using site contrived mechanisms is not wanting to do cache maintenance.

Simply print out a full logs cache sheet of your log, go check on your cache, check the logs, and mark the cache sheet log for log. Go home and ask (tactfully) those who have logged online, but not the cache log, why that is.

While you're at the cache site don't forget to do a site survey for signs of wear, remove trash, replenish swag, and CITO.

It's your cache, take responsiblity for it.

2.1k · January 10, 2004

I think a main issue for trying to keep people from cheating by using site contrived mechanisms is not wanting to do cache maintenance.

I'm not sure if I understood your statement correctly or not. The way I read it though was that you are saying that adding this extra mechanism is a way for owners not to go and do cache maintenance. If so, I disagree. Cache maintenance is a total seperate subject and shouldn't be involved in this, other than what BrianSnat stated. If a person is logging fake finds on your caches, then there could be a problem and you not know about it. I believe that an owner should check on their cache every so often whether if the logs denote it's need or not. For several reasons. 1) to make sure the container is in good order, 2) to make sure the log and finders sheet or readable, dry and in good order, 3) to make sure that there are adequate trade items and that they have not been depleted to trash, 4) to make sure the environment is not being impacted negatively (according to GC guidelines) and other similar reasons. These have to do with maintenance which should be doing periodically. Now, how do you determine of when or how often to go and check it? I think part of it would depend on the traffic in which you receive. How do you tell how much traffic, you are receiving? Normally by online logs. So if you are getting a lot of finds, then you need to check your cache more often than you would for one that gets a find every now and then. If you have a cache that don't get a lot of finds and there is time in between, people could have logged fake finds. But the cache could be missing. Some people (honest) may have looked for the cache, but didn't log a DNF. They may simply think I'll come back later and try to find it. A good bit of time can go by with the cache missing. Only to be noticed when the owner actually goes and checks.

Is it a competition? It depends on the person. Some like to compete with others. Some like to compete with themselves. Some want to find as many as they can and show off. So what, everyone has their own way of playing. As a cache owner, I don't want people to log fake finds. Why? Because it's a slap in the face to me and a slap in the face to the cachers who did find it. If you didn't get off your lazy a** and go out to it and sign the log, then don't bother logging it online. I for one will check periodically on my caches. As a cacher, it is a slap in the face to me. I made the effort to go out and find it and log it. I took the time to go out and do it, I would hope the owner would be kind enough to do the same and not emote a "I don't care attitude". If they don't care, then post it on the cache page and I will skip the cache.

People are going to cheat, no matter what. They are going to try and they will succeed. Do we make it easy for them and look the other way? Who is it hurting? It may be hurting some of the finders or potential finders as BrianSnat mentioned. I don't see how retrieving a number for a cache could be all that more difficult for you to do. People usually (not all the times) take a copy of the cache sheet with them or a pda/ppc. Write the number down while there at the cache. Take a log book with you just for this. I normally go after more than one cache when I go. I have a little book that I write some quick notes down on so that I won't have things mixed up when I get home and log them. It's not hard to do.

The lid coded thing makes it so much easier to put a slow down on the cheaters and liers.

Here's an option, how about making it an option for the cache owners? I would for one would opt to have it on my caches. On the cache page will be a message that says this cache has a lid code. Then when they go to log a find, it will say it requires a lid code. For those that lose the lid code, well they could email the cache owner and let them know. Then the cache owner can decide if they are truthfull or not and give it to them to log the find.

January 10, 2004

I wasn't talking about replacing the logbook. Just adding a number to it, hell the owner can pick the number/word. It pisses me off when people log fake finds, thats how it effects me. If you don't care about it thats your business. I won't try to change your mind.

If it becomes a big problem here I will add my own number, not a big deal.

As stated above, seeing a log for a missing cache would tell me that it's still there. I would go for it.

I just hate cheaters!! :tongue:

1.3k · January 10, 2004

I just hate cheaters!!

I know how you feel. I hate people who suspect me of cheating when I've done nothing and make me pass a test just so I can tell them what I good time I had.

I suspect I'll be posting notes in the future and just tracking my finds in watcher.

January 10, 2004

Let's see "lid code" rule number 4,256 section A part 2 etc.... This should be simple. If it is your cache and you want a code word, number whatever do it. If it is your cache and you don't want to do it, don't do it. To make it mandatory is overkill. :tongue:

2.1k · January 10, 2004

I just hate cheaters!!

I know how you feel. I hate people who suspect me of cheating when I've done nothing and make me pass a test just so I can tell them what I good time I had.

I suspect I'll be posting notes in the future and just tracking my finds in watcher.

Or just don't log it online at all....

January 10, 2004

I just hate cheaters!!

I know how you feel. I hate people who suspect me of cheating when I've done nothing and make me pass a test just so I can tell them what I good time I had.

I suspect I'll be posting notes in the future and just tracking my finds in watcher.

No one suggested that you were a cheater, why take it personal? You pay insurance rated for your local area, the more bad drivers there are the more you pay. Does this make you a bad driver?

If a number/word is used for a cache it doesnt make you a cheater nor does it suggest you are. Thats just plain crazy man.

I was just a topic. No need to take it personal, relax, have fun. The only thing i wanted was opinions. Sorry if it offened some of you, wasn't my intention.

A number/word is NO different than a logbook, think about it. A logbook is proof you were there is it not? What so different if you number your logbook?

2.1k · January 10, 2004

The guidelines say to sign the book and trade items. The rule for trading is disregarded by many, and there is no effort to enforce it. I think enforcing one on a whim and disregarding the other sets a precedent to bend the rules whichever way you want.

The guidelines also say that caches do not have to have trade items...

So if a cache is not required to have trade items, then there can't be a requirement to trade items.

1.3k · January 10, 2004

A number/word is NO different than a logbook, think about it. A logbook is proof you were there is it not?

No. It's not. A log book is a place where I read stories, see stamps, and learn the history of the cache. It's the place where I write down this moment in time for the next person who comes along, regardless if they come again in an hour or in a hundred years.

It's the place where I read about the laughter, the fun, the dumb mistakes, and the miracles. It's the place where I share in the experience with everyone else and remember those who came before me and think about those who follow me.

Perhaps to you it's just a way of passing a test that allows you to increase your find count by 1. If so, I feel sorry for you.

January 10, 2004

Hey bons, no need to feel sorry for me brother. I use the net logs for that, more permanent. Why are you so offended be me? Did I strike a nerve? LOVE YOU MAN

4k · January 10, 2004

I understand the point Briansnat was making. However, have you ever been the first not to find a cache after it has been muggled? I have been twice. Both had been found and logged the week before by reputable cachers, so I know they weren't faked. When I went out, the caches were gone. So I don't buy into it causing that much of a difference if it's a fake log and you can't find it because it's not there, or if it's a real log, but you can't find it because it's not there.

2.1k · January 10, 2004

But a fake log only makes it worse. A fake log is something that can be controlled more than muggles. Unless you are immediately following a cacher you trust and doing the caches right after tehm, then you run the risk of going out after a cache and it not being there at all. Even though a log the day before says it was. Did you just not find it or is it really missing? If a log is fake, one will never know until the owner actually checks. Owners actually count on the logs in between routine maintenance trips. Or at least many do I should say.

I noticed on the cache that you own that you've already had to do maintenance on it because of problems. Luckily the people told you what was wrong. Imagine if they forgot to mention the log and then the next person a month or so later posted a find (fake) and said it was ok....Then sometime goes by again and the same thing. The guidelines state that it's the owners responsibility for the quality control fo the logs against bogus logs, counterfeir logs and etc. This is to try and keep things straight. Cache owners owe it those that take the time to find their cache to ensure it's welfare and honesty. As I stated once before as well, many people who can not find a cache, will not state so online. They simply think they just couldn't find it and will be back later. Some do not like posting DNF's. I had trouble finding one out of 100 and it was about #80 or so. I wasn't used to not finding a cache that I simply forgot to put a DNF on it. The cache owner had to remind me after I emailed him about it.

4k · January 10, 2004

I noticed on the cache that you own that you've already had to do maintenance on it because of problems. Luckily the people told you what was wrong. Imagine if they forgot to mention the log and then the next person a month or so later posted a find (fake) and said it was ok....Then sometime goes by again and the same thing.

True, but I had been planning maintenence about the same time I got the log telling me about the problem with the log book. I think reasonable maintenence times would counteract the problem. I am actually setting my own guidelines to do maintenence after each 5 finds. Sure, if 4 of those are fake, the 5th searcher may get bummed, but I still think the point is moot. As someone else (probably you) suggested, if you want a code for confirmation, include it in your cache. If you don't, then leave it out. Don't make it mandatory for everyone, as we already have more than enough guidelines to follow. I think I'd end up placing less caches (yes, I'm planning a couple more right now) if I was forced to confirm every find made on them. Just my point of view.

2.1k · January 10, 2004

The maintenance plan on each owner differs. I hate the fact that people do not go and perform checks on their caches without reason. I believe there should be a time period. And perhaps if the cache is really busy, then after so many people liek you stated.

The codeword thing is an idea for people to use. The way of doing it manually is cumbersome, but for those who want to do it, it may be worth it. The idea would be for it to be an automatic process liek the TB's. I wouldn't have a problem with it being an option when plaing a cache. Like a cehckbox of if you want this feature. If you select yes, it will send you a randomly generated number to place in/on your cache and will automatically place a notice on the cache that "this cache has a verification process...." Then when the finder finds the cache, they sign the log book like normally and take the number. Then when they go to log it in, they are automatically asked for that number. Then they get to make their log entry. Like I said, it would be an option. The only extra thing the owner would do is ensure the number is visible on/in the cache.

Of course checking the logbook and online logs is another issue and I started another thread about it.

1.3k · January 10, 2004

Unless you are immediately following a cacher you trust

As oppossed to all the other cachers out there who have never done anything wrong, faked a log, cheated, or anything else sinister, who apparently you have chosen NOT to trust on the sole grounds that they're geocachers... :tongue:

2.1k · January 10, 2004

Unless you are immediately following a cacher you trust

As oppossed to all the other cachers out there who have never done anything wrong, faked a log, cheated, or anything else sinister, who apparently you have chosen NOT to trust on the sole grounds that they're geocachers...

So asking for a code is saying I don't trust you? What about when you go to the store and use a credit card and they ask to see ID. Is it because they don't trust you?

My words on following someone you trust was on sparky's mention of that a person they trusted was there before them....So obviously he doesn't trust geocachers either, only certain ones. Perhaps we were talking about ones that he knows are good and decent people. That's the way I took it. Of the people who have signed my logbooks, I only have met 2 of them. There are some others whose names I have seen around in logbooks and on webpages. They are people who I would trust outright until proven otherwise.

But how about this, this is a great idea , trust me.

1.3k · January 11, 2004

So asking for a code is saying I don't trust you? What about when you go to the store and use a credit card and they ask to see ID. Is it because they don't trust you?

Yes. That's exactly why they ask to see id.

My words on following someone you trust was on sparky's mention of that a person they trusted was there before them....So obviously he doesn't trust geocachers either, only certain ones. Perhaps we were talking about ones that he knows are good and decent people. That's the way I took it. Of the people who have signed my logbooks, I only have met 2 of them. There are some others whose names I have seen around in logbooks and on webpages. They are people who I would trust outright until proven otherwise.

But how about this, this is a great idea , trust me.

I'm sorry but I no longer can. You see, it's been my experience that the only people who seem to operate out of an inherent mode are distrust are those people who know exactly how untrustworthy they are.

Honestly, it amazes me. It seems that you trust people you've never met enough to spend the time hiding an ammo box, filling it with swag, and going through all the trouble on the assumption that they won't steal it and then, when they try to share their experience with you, you don't want to believe them and need them to pass a test.

:tongue:

January 11, 2004

Forgive me if I have missed something since I am new and have not been reading these forums as long as you wise gentlemen, but I have not noticed this being a cronic and widespread problem. My goodness, you folks are truly blessed to have so much spare time and so few problems as to spend this much time and energy developing intricate systems to "catch" those poor sad souls who's highlight in life is to "fake" a log entry. I admit there are probably some folks who get their sad kicks from tricking the person who placed the cache, but maybe there are some other people that are handicapped in some way, physically (or otherwise), who for whatever reason feel that this makes them somehow feel a part of it all. In any event, please just let it go and ignore it... and be thankful that you are physically healthy enough to actually find the caches you log and mentally stable enough to know the difference.

January 11, 2004

Forgive me if I have missed something since I am new and have not been reading these forums as long as you wise gentlemen,

Wise? Well thanks from all of us.

My goodness, you folks are truly blessed to have so much spare time and so few problems as to spend this much time and energy developing intricate systems to "catch" those poor sad souls who's highlight in life is to "fake" a log entry.

Some times we don't go out caching for whatever reason and discuss thoughts here together, maybe playing the devils advocate, not to stir things up but to just get people thinking and maybe once in a while someone will have a good idea or a refinement of anothers idea.

I don't take quotes of me or others comments too personally and try tobe respectful of their ideas even if I don't agree.

edit: typo

Edited January 11, 2004 by ironman114

January 11, 2004

Ironman114, Thank you for your perceptive comment and I look forward to reading those "good ideas and refinements". It's just that to this newbie, it seemed as if some folks were getting unjustifiably upset and spending an inordinate amount of time to solve a problem that seems to be with just a few sad individuals. Again, I am new and probably don't understand the scope of this problem, but I do know if someone wants to cheat, they will find a way. You can not control this, but you can control the amount of time, energy, and emotion you respond with and, in this humble newbie's opinion, that should be none.

Edited January 11, 2004 by SunnyCyndi

4k · January 11, 2004

.....and be thankful that you are physically healthy enough to actually find the caches you log and mentally stable enough to know the difference.

This statement pretty well sums it all up for me.

January 11, 2004

Sunnycyndi,

I am a newbie too , I have learned a lot here in less than 2 months. Sometimes I think people argue too much and they do. I am learning who wants to argue and who is stimulating thinking. Most caches are 20 to 30 miles from me and I don't start a new job and get a paycheck till next Friday. So I amuse myself here and try to help others in the meantime.

Sparky is injured and can't even get out to get a cache so he gets his mind off his pain and boredom by posting here and he helps others too. I'll never catch up to him in posts and won't even try.

Also this is a good way to improve my typing too.

edit: now I have to fix my typos. Maybe I should use the preview post button more!

Edited January 11, 2004 by ironman114

2.1k · January 12, 2004

Forgive me if I have missed something since I am new and have not been reading these forums as long as you wise gentlemen, but I have not noticed this being a cronic and widespread problem. My goodness, you folks are truly blessed to have so much spare time and so few problems as to spend this much time and energy developing intricate systems to "catch" those poor sad souls who's highlight in life is to "fake" a log entry. I admit there are probably some folks who get their sad kicks from tricking the person who placed the cache, but maybe there are some other people that are handicapped in some way, physically (or otherwise), who for whatever reason feel that this makes them somehow feel a part of it all. In any event, please just let it go and ignore it... and be thankful that you are physically healthy enough to actually find the caches you log and mentally stable enough to know the difference.

Sorry to sound like some of the old timers around, but you haven't been around here and there has been a problem before. I've been here since June and it's been discussed before about people cheating or whatever you want to call it. You have only been here a couple weeks. I'm sure you have not seen mouch discussion. The forums have been very slow in the last few months. Before the moderation, the forums were booming here. Physical capabilities have nothing to do with it. There are caches available to those who are disabled. There are virtuals as well. This has nothing to do with that. This has to do with those that blatanly go out of their way to claim finds that they didn't. Does it hurt anyone? Maybe not. Do some people not like it? Yes I don't like those who lie, cheat or steal. We are not talking about catching people who do it. If we were, we would be talking about something else. A lid code will not catch people. It will hamper their abilities to do it. In other words, prohibit it from happening. Why do we care? Well as a cache owner, I think BrianSnat has summed it up nicely. As a cacher, the numbers do mean something to me. I do look at others numbers. Do I feel like I am competing? Sometimes. I want to know also that when I look at other peoples numbers that I know they put in the effort, like I did, to get off their butt to go and do it. I don't get time to go out and cache very much and is normally while I will do 5-10 at a given time when I do get the chance. I get a lot of time to spend on the computer and forums. I could easily sit there and log fake finds. It would be easy to do as many owners don't even check their log books with the online logs.

If you are not going to participate in a thread for it's subject other than to tell others they are complaining, then move along. Also don't worry about what others spend their "inordinate amount of time" discussing, debating, or trying to solve something. Just as you stated that those discussing in this forum are doing. Aren't you doing the same thing with your postings?

January 12, 2004

NO MORE RULES. Lighten up people, Like some of you I say who cares? The only numbers I care about(?) if you can even say that are mine, I know where and when I found or didn't find something and could care less about someone who has XXXX finds.

If your time is so valuable, and you don't want to "waste" it or make a trip "for nothing" then why not email the last few finders and verify that it was there. Or better yet, why not just go for it and enjoy the drive, walk, fresh air, time with the family or kids. It's not all about the cache, it's about the outing. I have read alot of posts from people who say things like "this is the first thing that has got me out of the house in years" or "my kids and I are finally doing something together" .

at least that's one man's opinion.........

2.1k · January 12, 2004

Your right, that is your opinion....it's not wrong and neither is anyones else. So don't worry about what others think might be good ideas or something they would like to see.

No more rules... that cracks me up. This isn't a rule. There are no rules, remember, only guidelines. And this would not follow under that. This would be a system. But even on the rules part...I may want more rules, so what. The forums are here for me to discuss it. If you don't like it, so what, go to the next thread. This wasn't a poll the last tiem I looked.

1.3k · January 12, 2004

The part that bugs me is that while I recall reading a LOT of accusations, I don't recall reading a lot of actually verified false logs. It's easy to get suspicious, especially when someone finds something and you don't. But the truth is, people just find things differently. It how you react to those suspicions that show what kind of person you are. If you start calling someone else a cheater just because they found something you couldn't, then you really need to take a good look at your sportsmanship and ask yourself if you're taking this too seriously.

There is no shame in a DNF. There is no shame in a perfectly good walk that resulted in a DNF. If you can't get over the fact that someone else got lucky where you didn't then you need to realize the problem is not the system nor is it the other cacher. Making changes to the system in order to accuse people just because you didn't have the same success is not the solution.

Edited January 12, 2004 by bons

38.2k · January 12, 2004

The part that bugs me is that while I recall reading a LOT of accusations, I don't recall reading a lot of actually verified false logs.

There have been some. Early last year there was one guy in south Jersey who posted a couple hundred fake found it logs. And of course most of use remember Electric Shavers and their hundreds of faked finds. I'm sure there are many others.

Not that I agree with changng the system to catch these people. The paper logs are sufficient in the event anybody feels the need to expose them.

2.1k · January 12, 2004

Bons, I don't think this has to do with I couldn't find the cache how the heck could he type of thing. This has to do with people like Electric Shavers, for example. It was obvious what they were doing. It also has to do with cache owners. Some may not care enough that if someone logs a fake find online on their cache. As a cache owner, I do. I don't care if someone cheats on another persons cache, well yeah I kind of do. I don't like cheaters or those who try to manipulate the system as such. As a cache owner it makes plenty of sense to me to have a verification system (preferrably auto) in place. It all ties in with the Qulaity Control issue and responsibility of cache owners as well. If we are not going to care about trying to keep things honest, then there are no needs for a lot of things. You could do away with logbooks and online logs. Just make a claim that you found it. It sure would help out on the bandwidth and server load here. If you want to tell the owner how you liked or disliked their cache, you could email them, send them a postcard or just right it on a piece of paper and leave it in the cache. But there's really no need to require a logbook right? And then lets forget about some of the other things. Like distance between caches, prohibited things in caches, and etc. The guidelines are there for a reason and they get changed occasionally for reasons. This is a system and not a guideline. Just like TB's. They use a system. Why have a tag with a number on it? To track it. But can't we just track it without having to enter a number? You could, but there would be fake finds on them and fake placements on them as they have already seen. The number is needed to try and keep it straight. Of course people can cheat and trade TB numbers around and etc. They do. But the number system cuts it down a lot. Why would one want to even do fake finds and placements of TB's anyway. To be devious. To up their TB count. Who else knows why. But it happens and it's not going to get any better. It would be one thing to say it never has happened. But it has happened and it does happen. A little preventative maintenance never hurts.

Also please make a note, that I have stated in this thread that perhaps this could be an option for cache owners to have with their caches. Not a requirement. But for those owners who wish to try and keep things straight for their honest finders. Yes it's a game to some, a hobby to others. To some it means a lot more. Don't downplay what it means to them. Respect them for it. Like I respect those who don't care about cheaters or a more loose type of caching. I like things not to be loos like that, but tighter. I care about numbers. Respect my thoughts and my ideas. And on another note, if it were a requirement lets say, then you could just sign the logbook and keep your onw record and not worry about the online log. You could just email the owner and tell them that you don't like using the system , but wanted to let them know you found it. There are plenty of people here that also keep personal records and have spreadsheets and the like to keep them. One could always do something like that.

2.1k · January 12, 2004

There have been some. Early last year there was one guy in south Jersey who posted a couple hundred fake found it logs. And of course most of use remember Electric Shavers and their hundreds of faked finds. I'm sure there are many others.

Not that I agree with changng the system to catch these people. The paper logs are sufficient in the event anybody feels the need to expose them.

Ditto...but I don't look at a system as a way of catching them. It won't catch them. It will just prevent or make it more difficult. The ultimate prevention is the cache owner. And unfortunately many do not care enough to perform those checks on their caches.

January 12, 2004

If you are not going to participate in a thread for it's subject other than to tell others they are complaining, then move along. Also don't worry about what others spend their "inordinate amount of time" discussing, debating, or trying to solve something. Just as you stated that those discussing in this forum are doing. Aren't you doing the same thing with your postings?

Thank you Mr Woodster for your comment, my, I quess you really put this little newbie in her place! Only problem is, I'm having trouble finding where it is in my comments that you say I "tell others they are complaining". I guess that's your interpretation of what you are doing - not mine.

While I appreciate your offer to move along, I think I'll just stay, thank you.

Edited January 12, 2004 by SunnyCyndi

4k · January 12, 2004

People people people!!!! Let's calm down here. There's really no need for flaming and personal attacks. I know everyone in this thread has an opinion, and I also know they can give it with a level head and not resort to attacks. Give the new people a break and don't attack them. We were all new at one time. And for the new people, let me just state that it's not a good way to get started by attacking the other members. I know, that's how I got started, and it's taken me 1400 posts to try to make up for it. So, let's all take a deep breath and get back to the topic at hand.

Dang, I sound like a moderator now. I need more coffee and Prozac.

2.1k · January 12, 2004

My apologies Cyndi, but you are correct you did not say those words of complaining. But your statements of that people are spending so much time for this or discussing this, comes off that way. It may not affect you, but it may and/or it may interest others. The subject of this discussion was on the idea that the topic starter started and not whether or not we were spendcing too much or so much time discussing soemthing that you haven't seen as a problem in the couple of weeks you have been around. Trust me, I 'm an advocate that newbies have ideas and offer good information on ideas with geocaching. If you have them, offer them. Rather than offering advice of time management and trying to dish out insults. The topic is about trying to stop cheaters. Do you have an idea of how to do that? If so, then feel free to offer them up.

An Idea

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment