Dnsl

[CoyoteRed]

I do want to say 180 in a month in that area is not only doable, it would be fairly easy.

 

Our last vacation was down there in that neck of the woods. From August 9th through August 15th, we found 139 and DNFed 13 for a total of 152 attempted caches. They weren't all drive-bys either. We hunted by proximity and interest using the GPS hooked to a laptop with a PQ on MSS&T. If a cache was close, we'd look it up and if it interested us, we'd do it. We weren't even in a hurry. We stopped and had lunch at a leisurely pace. Sometimes we'd cache til late at night--it was August--sometimes we knocked off early.

 

So, 180 in 30 days is not hard at all. Only thing is, you'll find our log entry in every logbook we've claimed.

[+briansnat]

I'd like to point out that there's a current record of over 200 caches in one day.

 

Anyone who thinks that 180 in 30 days is an insane pace should stifle that argument until this person logs more than 200 caches in one day. There is also a few hundred mile radius for proximity of caches in one day. I have seen CCC cache in about 4 different states in one day when I looked through their find records.

 

OK, I give in. The guy is legit. But its strange that CCCooper has the time to sign the logs in all the caches she finds.

Edited March 16, 2004 by briansnat

[ju66l3r]

I'm not saying that this guy is legit. I would like to hear from *him* though why he did not sign the logs before I were to delete anything (innocent until *proven* guilty).

 

I read a large number of the first 30 posts to this thread making references to his rate and so on being their justification for believing him to be a fraudulent cacher. I want people to stop and realize that they can't use the "average cacher" or even their own rates as some sort of measuring stick for the rest of us. Just because someone doesn't fit your simple definition of geocaching does not mean they did not legitimately find and log online your cache. It's really not up to any of us as to *why* any of us choose to play this game the way we do, so long as we do so by the rules of each geocache that we claim to log.

 

If a cache hider requires a signature in a logbook, then even post-hoc they can work with a cache finder to get that done, I'm sure. It just seems as though many people here are quick to condemn a user because he doesn't fit their expectations and that in my book is the wrong approach. Especially in a forum that doesn't require the other party to defend themselves or even know the gossip exists.

[+SeventhSon]

I read: "They're cheating"

I think: How does one cheat in a game where there are no winners

 

I read: "Numbers don't count, why log finds you didn't find"

I think: Numbers don't count, why worry about someone who does

 

I read: "I'd be mad if I searched for a missing cache that someone logged as a find they didn't find"

I think: What if it went missing after an actual find

 

I read: "Signing the physical log is the only proof you found it"

I think: Well there goes virts and locationless

I think: How many hiders compare online logs with physical logs?

I think: What if a cache goes missing, does every finder delete their find now that the proof is missing?

 

I read: Thread after thread about fake finds

I think: Imagine how many fake finds are logged in a way that are not suspicious and go unnoticed.

 

And then I wonder .....

 

7

[+briansnat]

If a cache hider requires a signature in a logbook, then even post-hoc they can work with a cache finder to get that done, I'm sure. It just seems as though many people here are quick to condemn a user because he doesn't fit their expectations and that in my book is the wrong approach. Especially in a forum that doesn't require the other party to defend themselves or even know the gossip exists.

 

Not signing a logbook, or two doesn't necessarly mean someone is cheating. It happens for one reason or another. Forgot, wet log, no pencil, etc...

 

A large number of finds, over a wide area in a relatively short period of time doesn't necessarily mean somebody is cheating. Many people do it.

 

A large number of finds in a short period of time, all without sigining the logbook doesn't necessarily mean someone is cheating, but it certainly does raise suspicions and begs for an explanation.

 

Oh and the link to this forum has been sent to the suspected cheater and he's yet to stop by to clear his name.

[martmann]

I would think the ignored emails from cache owners, the fact that he's doing something nobody else does but gives no explanation for why, and the high find per day rate is what makes most believe it's cheating. I think he's cheating.

 

If he posted a "DNSL" on a cache of mine, I would email him, wait a week for a reply, if no reply, then I'd delete the find, and welcome him to re-log after signing the cache log book.

[dead_white_man]

A large number of finds in a short period of time, all without sigining the logbook doesn't necessarily mean someone is cheating, but it certainly does raise suspicions and begs for an explanation.

 

Oh and the link to this forum has been sent to the suspected cheater and he's yet to stop by to clear his name.

This is refered to as "a preponderance of evidence". It does not prove beyond doubt, but certainly is enough for me.

[ju66l3r]

This is refered to as "a preponderance of evidence". It does not prove beyond doubt, but certainly is enough for me.

No. It is circumstantial evidence of geocaching. Neither high find rates nor a null defense are incriminating. Witnessing the accused log into GC.com and log a cache that he did not leave his place to find would be evidence. In the meantime, logs can be deleted if the hider chooses to patrol their own logbooks to determine that he did not sign it and they have given ample warning that this is a requirement for their cache.

[+radioscout]

I would'nt do anything. He does not hurt anyone. The Groundspeak server won't breake down because of some fake logs and the cache owners will know that they can ignore his logs.

Maybe he just wants to provokate. Imagine what he can do is his logs are deleted: he could try out all possible TB numbers and log them in different caches. Or he could go out and destroy caches. So let him play his childish game and ignore the logs.

[+Geo Ho]

If it was my cache and someone logged a find but did not sign the log book I would delete the log . . . unless there are credible circumstances as to why they did not sign . . .

 

For example I did not sign the log on this cache because the cache was completely frozen in place and I could not remove it. I e-mailed the cache owner and let them know the circumstances (thank you Briansnat for not deleting the log).

 

It's up to you . . .

 

That is my opinion . . . such as it is.

 

Happy caching and stuff!

[+travisl]

As I wrote in the northwest forums two weeks ago:

I've always believed that cache owners are the ultimate gatekeepers to find counts, and their word is law as to whether a cacher gets a smilie or a note. It's the cache owner's responsibility -- perhaps it's even their duty to the geocaching community -- to maintain the integrity of the logs on their caches.

[dead_white_man]

This is refered to as "a preponderance of evidence".  It does not prove beyond doubt,  but certainly is enough for me.

No. It is circumstantial evidence of geocaching. Neither high find rates nor a null defense are incriminating. Witnessing the accused log into GC.com and log a cache that he did not leave his place to find would be evidence. In the meantime, logs can be deleted if the hider chooses to patrol their own logbooks to determine that he did not sign it and they have given ample warning that this is a requirement for their cache.

Circumstantial evidence IS evidence. I stand by my statement

[+Team Perks]

Travisl said it well. As cache owners, we would feel obligated to investigate any "unverified" visits to our caches. It's only fair to the people who have put the time and effort into looking for them. Some are of such difficulty that people have had to make as many as 10-12 trips out there to find them. Logging a find is a testament to the perseverence and skills of those cachers.

 

Our logs consist of (usually pre-dated) stickers and usually very little else. It only takes a few seconds.

 

Sometimes, however, we forget our stickers or a pen and don't want to walk back to the car to get them. We feel it's only courteous to verify the few DNSL's we've had with an explanation. What to do? Simple: We send an email identifying what the cache was, how/where it was hidden, and offer to provide photo verification if desired (and if we had a camera available with us). In a couple cases, we couldn't get the cache container open because it was rusted shut.

 

Aside from a couple rivalries, however, we aren't competing against anybody. What is important to us is that OUR finds are legitimate based on OUR opinions about how the game is played. If someone wants to play differently, we aren't going to stay up all night fretting about it.

 

Sure, it's fun to see how many we can do in a day, or in a week, etc. But the thrill is in the hunt, the adventure, and the camaraderie. Not the count.

[ju66l3r]

Circumstantial evidence IS evidence. I stand by my statement

There is an extremely large rash of poor reading comprehension in these forums lately. I said "It is circumstantial evidence of GEOCACHING". So, if you agree that this is evidence of geocaching, then your post is unnecessary. If you intended to disagree with me and actually believe it to be circumstantial evidence of CHEATING then so be it. But you would be wrong, unless you also believe that prior to the Gorilla Finders in TN posting about their run they were also cheating (which was obviously cleared up by their posts).

 

My point is that there is not nearly enough circumstantial evidence OR direct evidence that this person is cheating. Unlike fake virtual logging where most people can't photoshop well enough to avoid detection, there is no evidence that they have cheated. They may not have legitimately claimed finds (IF the hiders of the caches found want to disallow the logs in which there is no signed logbook) and so they may have their logs deleted for that, but there is nothing that you, I, or anyone else here has presented that you can use to reasonably conclude that this person has not actually found the caches for which they have claimed finds. As such, it is speculation and gossip that leads you to your conclusion. If that is fine by you, so be it, but as for me, I will reserve judgement until I hear from them or it affects me in some way.

[dead_white_man]

Circumstantial evidence IS evidence.  I stand by my statement

There is an extremely large rash of poor reading comprehension in these forums lately. I said "It is circumstantial evidence of GEOCACHING". So, if you agree that this is evidence of geocaching, then your post is unnecessary. If you intended to disagree with me and actually believe it to be circumstantial evidence of CHEATING then so be it. But you would be wrong, unless you also believe that prior to the Gorilla Finders in TN posting about their run they were also cheating (which was obviously cleared up by their posts).

 

My point is that there is not nearly enough circumstantial evidence OR direct evidence that this person is cheating. Unlike fake virtual logging where most people can't photoshop well enough to avoid detection, there is no evidence that they have cheated. They may not have legitimately claimed finds (IF the hiders of the caches found want to disallow the logs in which there is no signed logbook) and so they may have their logs deleted for that, but there is nothing that you, I, or anyone else here has presented that you can use to reasonably conclude that this person has not actually found the caches for which they have claimed finds. As such, it is speculation and gossip that leads you to your conclusion. If that is fine by you, so be it, but as for me, I will reserve judgement until I hear from them or it affects me in some way.

I draw your attention to the rules. specifically #3.

 

What are the rules in Geocaching? From the website.

 

Geocaching is a relatively new phenomenon. Therefore, the rules are very simple:

 

1. Take something from the cache

 

2. Leave something in the cache

 

3. Write about it in the logbook

 

Where you place a cache is up to you.

 

 

More than enough to delete the finds.

[dead_white_man]

Those who choose to make up their own game are certainly welcome to... however I will delete their find.

[+Mopar]

Well, it looks like the finder has read this forum, and choses not to respond. They did however, add SIGNED LOG to all the caches they did today. I still say it's up to the owners of those 190 caches to check and see if the signature is there, or in the case of virtuals, the email.

I know if they were my caches, no signed (without a reasonable excuse), no find.

[+beejay&esskay]

Well, it looks like the finder has read this forum, and choses not to respond. They did however, add SIGNED LOG to all the caches they did today.

It does seem, though, that if he keeps up the same pace while SIGNING LOGS, that the most likely explanation is he didn't see any reason to sign them to start.

 

If I were an affected cache owner, I'd accept any e-mail response from him affirming that he actually visited my cache.

[CoyoteRed]

My stance is unless you can verify the visit you can't claim the find. Doesn't matter if you found it. If you didn't sign the logbook, or fulfilled whatever verification method is acceptable, then it's as good as if you were never there.

[+Mopar]

I agree with CR. One step further, just because someone types "SIGNED LOG" doesnt mean they did.

Heck, the fake logger we had here even claimed to see other cachers and have conversations with them. (of course, it was later found out the fake logger and the cacher they conversed with were one and the same. Talk about a Sock Puppet!)

Check the logs, especially the ones they claim to sign.

Again, with the fake guy we had here, he claimed to trade items in my cache. When I checked the cache, not only was there no log, but the item he claimed to leave wasnt there, and the item he claimed to take still was. Not too bright.

Edited March 16, 2004 by Mopar

[WH]

Heck, the fake logger we had here even claimed to see other cachers and have conversations with them. (of course, it was later found out the fake logger and the cacher they conversed with were one and the same. Talk about a Sock Puppet!)

Maybe he made one for each of the voices in his head

[+Geo Ho]

I agree with CR. One step further, just because someone types "SIGNED LOG" doesnt mean they did.

Heck, the fake logger we had here even claimed to see other cachers and have conversations with them. (of course, it was later found out the fake logger and the cacher they conversed with were one and the same. Talk about a Sock Puppet!)

Check the logs, especially the ones they claim to sign.

Again, with the fake guy we had here, he claimed to trade items in my cache. When I checked the cache, not only was there no log, but the item he claimed to leave wasnt there, and the item he claimed to take still was. Not too bright.

Are her names Sybil??

[+eddthejailer]

if you look at his logs he made today he is starting to log his finds and he is putting SIGNED LOG on them now.i say central florida has enough local caches for him to get that many so quickly.wonder tho how he learned of the game.if he followed another cacher and learned quickly he may very well have not cheated.dunno why he wouldnt have signed the logs tho????just my 2 cents.

 

edited to say oops i got beat to the punch on that one lol.

Edited March 16, 2004 by eddthejailer

[+Doc-Dean]

I do find it very interesting that his occupation is listed as accountant.

 

Every accountant I know is currently in TAX hell, working 120 hour weeks preparing tax returns. Even the accountants who don't normally do taxes are busy this time of year doing some tax work...

 

I wonder how he has the time to find all those caches. I guess he could be unemployed.

 

I really don't care how he is playing the game, I just thought I would add some of my useful (useless?) insight...

 

Edit: Add - After reading a post on the NEFGA web board I see that this individual has satisfactorily explained the reason why he had not signed the log books by his choice. I don't know all the details but I imagine he was just exercising his choice not to log them...

Edited March 17, 2004 by Doc-Dean

[+The SuzyQs]

Yes. He has explained himself. He has answered questions that only a person who found the cache could know, so I am satisfied with his finds, just not how he posted them. He has found a couple today and he put "SIGNED THE LOG" in his post, so I think we got through to him.

[+Corp Of Discovery]

And you are assuming he did not find them.

Both assumptions are equally wrong.

 

Equally wrong? Sorry. The idea that someone would go through the trouble of finding a cache and logging the find online, but not sign the paper log is a major stretch. Once or twice maybe, but 100+ times? I really doubt it. Is it possible that my assumption is wrong and this guy is indeed finding these caches and not signing the log? Sure. But I think most people will agree that its highly likely that this guy is faking these finds. This means that my assumption is probably right and Jul is probably wrong...so both assumptions are NOT "equally wrong".

What I meant was that both of you were wrong to assume anything with so little information.

[ju66l3r]

I am not in any way speaking for Greg Smith, I am only doing him a favor as he points out on their forum (NEFGA link above) he does not visit here often and so he did not know that this was a topic of discussion here.

 

Here is his post on their forums (verbatim):

 

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

This is an open message to all the members of NEFGA, from The Federation. In the last few days it has come to everyone's attention about a certain cacher who was signing logs "dnsl". I do not, repeat do not want to make this an open topic of discussion here in the forums. I guess the basis of the topic but I would like to keep this as non-personal as possible. I have recieved what I feel is a justifiable reason from the cacher in question about the absence of signings on the logs in question. The cacher has asked me to pass this along to anyone who has questions about his motivations or the veracity of his finds. I emailed everyone that I can think of or that I had email for, if you didn't recieve an email from me and would like a copy of our correspondence please email me and I will forward a copy to you. Please don't use this forum as a place to flame this cacher I personally believe his intentions were honorable and he is making attempts to remedy the situation.

As for me I have decided to let all of his logs on my caches to stand, this is only my position, but I am encouraging others to take the same path.

Greg Smith

President NEFGA

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

 

I would just like to thank everyone here who did NOT initially dive on top of the dogpile that is often the case here. I believe some of you may owe apologies for your overreactions and far-too-quick-to-jump attitudes. Alot of "witches" died 300 years ago and I guess some people still haven't learned.

[+TEAM 360]

I would just like to thank everyone here who did NOT initially dive on top of the dogpile that is often the case here. I believe some of you may owe apologies for your overreactions and far-too-quick-to-jump attitudes.

That's the usual reaction around these parts.

[ghOzt]

...and now they've all disappeared. Perhaps they're fully relishing the taste of shoe leather??

 

<Where's the "point finger and laugh" emoticon when you need it? will have to do.>

[CoyoteRed]

Well, guess that's that. He did actually visit the caches.

 

I respect what The Federation said about letting his finds stand on their caches.

 

However, even in light of this, I'd email him and ask that he kindly return and sign the log sometime before my next check.

 

Look, I've done a lot of caches down there. Many are caches where you have to fight muggles to retrieve it. I looked through the list and see some high-risk in there. While many of the ones are a blur, I do remember there are some where you can get within inches of the cache--can even put your hands on it--but have to wait for all of the muggles to turn away at the same time to retrieve it. (I love high-risk micros.) Seeing the cache doesn't count. Discribing the outisde of the cache doesn't count. Putting your hands on the cache doesn't count. Only successfully retrieving the cache and opening it counts. The log is the verification that you did it.

 

Call me an a** for this, I don't care. The signing of the logbook is one of those rules that I won't compromise on. I guess that's why we don't place virts.

[+briansnat]

I can't imagine what this vague "justifiable reason" is, so something still doesn't smell right. No eating of shoe leather here. If the guy was indeed finding the caches and not signing the logs, for whatever odd reason, he was just begging to have the veracity of his finds questioned and that's all many of us have been doing.

Edited March 17, 2004 by briansnat

[+Mopar]

I'm still behind (below?) CR and BrianSnat on this.

Part of the challenge of urban micros is in the retrieval. Seeing the spot where the EPCOT micro is hidden is a piece of cake. Actually getting it without being seen is a trick. I also gotta wonder why the seemingly big secret as to the reason? Despite what some might think, I don't blindly support anyone. I don't suddenly change my opinion because someone else said they decided it's ok. Tell me the reason, I'll make up my own mind, thank you.

[+mrmnjewel]

Obviously in this case, the guy seems to be legit. The way I look at it, though, those who would falsely log a cache find are only cheating themselves of a lot of fun. Whatever floats their boat

[+infosponge]

The signing of the logbook is one of those rules that I won't compromise on.

 

Amen. If a log is part of the cache and you did not sign it, you did not completely find it. When I got started caching, my peers would have kicked my a** (figuratively, not literally) for not signing the log.

[+Crow T Robot]

Although I have not communicated directly with the cacher in question, several emails were forwarded to me that offer more explanation. He decided to begin logging his finds on the web page well after he began caching. He explains that it helps him during proximity searches to filter out the ones he has already found. He had kept a record of them and entered the logs in a short period of time; however, he did not assign the "date found" in his online logs.

 

I agree that it's up to the cache owners to decide if they will accept this explanation and allow the logs to stand. It's my understanding that he has provided verification for virtual caches and several physical caches that utilize code words or other verification in addition to the cache log. His method is certainly unusual, but I've seen stranger things! What appeared to be cheating at first glance now seems merely an eccentricity. Carry on.

[+Mopar]

Thanks for the added info, Crow. It makes a little more sense now.

 

I still don't get the DNSL bit, though.

why NOT sign the log?

 

It would be just as easy to cut and paste something like "I just started logging old finds under this account, not sure what date I was actually here, sorry." as it would be to paste 4 letters into every log.

Edited March 17, 2004 by Mopar

[+Crow T Robot]

I still don't get the DNSL bit, though.

why NOT sign the log?

I don't understand it, either. He had an explanation of not wanting to "disturb the cache"; I don't think he was even taking or leaving items. At least he wasn't trading down! This situation certainly tops my list of unexpected behavior. No, the most unexpected was the guy in Jacksonville leaving organic deposits in caches. He finally stopped after being threatened with great bodily harm!

[+Geo Ho]

I still don't get the DNSL bit, though.

why NOT sign the log?

I don't understand it, either. He had an explanation of not wanting to "disturb the cache"; I don't think he was even taking or leaving items. At least he wasn't trading down! This situation certainly tops my list of unexpected behavior. No, the most unexpected was the guy in Jacksonville leaving organic deposits in caches. He finally stopped after being threatened with great bodily harm!

Oh! Eeeewwwww!

[+infosponge]

No, the most unexpected was the guy in Jacksonville leaving organic deposits in caches.

That's odd! I remember doing a cache in JAX and having a guy come up and just about pee on me while I was searching for a cache there. It must be a regional custom.

[+GPSKitty]

I still don't get the DNSL bit, though.

why NOT sign the log?

 

I don't understand it, either. He had an explanation of not wanting to "disturb the cache"; I don't think he was even taking or leaving items. At least he wasn't trading down! This situation certainly tops my list of unexpected behavior. No, the most unexpected was the guy in Jacksonville leaving organic deposits in caches. He finally stopped after being threatened with great bodily harm!

 

I, for one, am not eating shoe leather. He was behaving in a suspicious manner IMO. If you behave suspiciously, you will be suspected. If I had behaved the way he did, and then realized all the suspicion I had raised, I wouldn't be the least bit hurt or offended. I would have the sense to realize that OF COURSE these people thought I was doing something dishonest. I wasn't playing the game according to the accepted standards.

Not wanting to "disturb the cache"? That doesn't make sense. The cache is there to be "disturbed", although hopefully not by muggles.

 

I still don't know if this guy is on the up and up. Apparently he has started signing logs now? If so, then he is gaining credibility.

 

GPSKitty