Cheaters !! Black List

May 10, 2004

Hi, I love GC :lol: because it's the moment when I can go outside, meet new people, lern new things, keep in contact with the environment,... From the beginning on there have bee guys who practiced this great hobby just like a competition. They logged everything, just in order to increase their "FOUND IT" counter.

Today, with the locationless/virtual caches the number of cheaters is dramatically increasing. The number of fake "proof pictures" is in some cases very obvious, but cache owners don't react.

I don't mind about what cheaters do, but since I have bee a boyscout for many years, I definitely hate unfair situations.

Please, is there now way to fight against cheaters? Maybe a black list, a temporary suspension of accounts, different handling for locationless or virtual caches.... I don't know what, any idea is welcome.

Please let's work together in order to keep your common hobby clean. GC is a hobby, and the "found it" counter will in no way make anybody earn money.

2.2k · May 10, 2004

If people want to cheat, let them. The last time I checked, there was no competition for the highest find count. There are too many people who think that because they have a higher find count than someone else, they are somehow a better cacher.

The day they start issuing prizes for the highest find counts, Ill worry about cheaters. For now, the only people they are cheating, is themselves.

38.2k · May 10, 2004

For now, the only people they are cheating, is themselves.

Not true. If someone cheats on a locationless, since most locationless rules allow one log per site/object , it is effectively blocked from legitimate geocachers being able to log it. I recall a locationless that had a faked find and one local couldn't log the object, so he had to drive over 100 miles to find another one to log.

And If someone cheats on a real cache, it could encourage others to come after a cache that is actually missing and search longer than they ordnarily would ("gee, it must be here, someone found it yesterday"). This is a waste of people's precious time.

Also, a fake log will also tell the owner that everything is OK with the cache, when that might not be the case. If this causes the owner to delay needed maintenance it affects others.

None of these cases are all that far fetched either. They happen frequently enough to be an issue. Cheat at solitare, who cares? Cheat at geocaching and you could be wasting someone else's time and that is wrong.

Please, is there now way to fight against cheaters? Maybe a black list, a temporary suspension of accounts, different handling for locationless or virtual caches.... I don't know what, any idea is welcome

Everybody knows who these people are and (with a few notable exceptions) they have little standing in the geocaching community. I don't think suspending, or banning their accounts is the answer, though they have banned the accounts of some blatant cheaters (and made others approvers :lol: ). I think cache owners policing their logs better is the best answer.

Edited May 10, 2004 by briansnat

May 10, 2004

wouldn't a cheater have to provide coords for a locationless?

And then, wouldn't those coords be different than my actual coords of the same object (assuming he used somebody else's picture and I had a real one)?

It seems like I'd get credit pretty easily, as mine would likely be percieved as different.

And when in doubt, look before you cache. If it's been claimed (real or not, don't waster your time. The probability of a anyone logging the same cache at the same time as you (within 2 days) is fairly low.

Janx

38.2k · May 10, 2004

wouldn't a cheater have to provide coords for a locationless?

And then, wouldn't those coords be different than my actual coords of the same object (assuming he used somebody else's picture and I had a real one)?

But its only one object. Locationless caches allow one find per site or object. The coordinates are irrelevant.

1.3k · May 10, 2004

The best way to discourage cheating (in my opinion) would be to remove all the found stats from the site...

However, I fear the uproar that would cause, so I'll settle for just not making that situation any worse.

As for the locationless and virtuals, the number of locationless caches is slowly dropping (since none are being approved) and virtuals are being "discouraged" at the moment.

Besides, it's easy enough to cheat with a traditional. It's not like all those owners are checking the logbooks. Anyone bored off their nut could probably make a career out of finding inactive owners and logging finds on those owners caches.

Edited May 10, 2004 by bons

May 10, 2004

As far as the locationless caches, like some one is going to scroll down 75-300 caches to see if some one already logged the cache? I have and it is a pain, I do not do very many locationless caches.

Don

1.3k · May 10, 2004

As far as the locationless caches, like some one is going to scroll down 75-300 caches to see if some one already logged the cache?

They hit the search function and look for the degrees and minutes of the co-ordinates. That's it. Simple, quick, and easy.

May 10, 2004

The best way to discourage cheating (in my opinion) would be to remove all the found stats from the site...

No problem with that here.

I wouldn't suggest removing the stats entirely (due, as you pointed out, to the uproar it would cause), but I'd love to have a way to disable my "found" counter and still be able to accurately log finds. The ability to 'opt-out' of displaying a find count on my logs would be very nice, though I find that the table in the profiles is very handy for a quick reference.

Too many people take something like this and turn it into an all-out competition to rack up the biggest numbers. To a casual cacher like myself, there's nothing more distasteful than to have someone make a big deal of the fact that they've found more caches/TBs/Virtuals/Locationless than you, simply to boost their own ego. Personally, I'm okay with the fact that I haven't found nearly as many caches as some other person. I enjoy the ones that I do find, and take no pleasure in sprinting through the woods to log a quick "TNLN" before tearing off to hit another just so I can get 25 in a day.

I have nothing against those who do enjoy such activities - more power to them. I just don't enjoy being on the receiving end of the "challenge" when they decide to flaunt their accomplishment in my face and turn GeoCaching into a competitive thing.

To each their own, I guess - just my two cents.

4k · May 10, 2004

GC is a hobby, and the "found it" counter will in no way make anybody earn money.

So, if that's the case, then what really is the issue? Aside from what BS said, who cares how many smilies anyone has or how they got them?

7.2k · May 10, 2004

The best way to discourage cheating (in my opinion) would be to remove all the found stats from the site...

However, I fear the uproar that would cause, so I'll settle for just not making that situation any worse.

FYI... that did happen at one time. After the find counts were removed there were several topics about it and almost everyone wanted the find counts back. They were brought back pretty quickly.

24.7k · May 10, 2004

Owners should police their logs. That's the only way to keep cheating down without causing undue and undue burdon on everyone else.

I just deleted a lot yesterday. while I hate doing it, it's the only way to keep things fair for the other people who did the job right. The cacher emailed me and had a question and that's fine. They are willing to play the game right.

May 10, 2004

an recent alternate site for listing cache coords has a system where you need to enter a code you find at a cache in order to log it.

eg. you visit cache #GCGCGC, and when there you find a note with a secret pass phrase, or number, or whatever, say it's "cheese sandwich", you then go on the site to log it... The site asks you for the pass phrase... if you've been to the cache, you know the 'password' is "cheese sandwich", but, if you're just a fool that wants more numbers... you don't can't log the find cause you don't know the password.

Anywho... that'd be a neat option to add to your caches, to have GC protect your cache from being logged by cheaters.

You could always do it the 'old fashion' way, and just put a password inside the cache, and tell the finders to email the password to you... or have their log deleted i dunno.

Admittedly this is an added pain in the buttocks when logging your finds, but... it could prevent against what you're talking about.

i agree though.... those cheating, are only cheating themselves. i'd rather find 1 good geocache, and have a nice day. than waste 20 hours logging 200 finds that I didn't find.... personally, I wouldn't be able to sleep at night.

24.7k · May 10, 2004

...an recent alternate site for listing cache coords has a system where you need to enter a code you find at a cache in order to log it...

It will be interesting to see feedback on Scouts site and how that works out in the real world. This system has been discussed in the GC.com forums with the following major comments.

1) Doh! I found your cache but wrote down the wrong code can you help me out!

2) "Pssst. Here is the code for the cache pass it on..."

You aready nailed the PITA angle.

38.2k · May 10, 2004

i agree though.... those cheating, are only cheating themselves

Next time you go out to look for a cache because you see it has a fresh find, only to discover that it's been missing for weeks, or months you might sing a different tune (see my earlier post).

2.2k · May 10, 2004

The best way to discourage cheating (in my opinion) would be to remove all the found stats from the site...

However, I fear the uproar that would cause, so I'll settle for just not making that situation any worse.

FYI... that did happen at one time. After the find counts were removed there were several topics about it and almost everyone wanted the find counts back. They were brought back pretty quickly.

Why cant those of us who dont like our finds counts displayed for the whole world to see be able to opt out of it. Those who like stats can keep their accounts the way it is.

I still want my stats calculated for my own use. Other people dont need to know how many caches Ive found.

38.2k · May 10, 2004

Other people dont need to know how many caches Ive found.

Sure I do. If you post a DNF on one of my easier caches and I see you have 600 finds, I'll probably get out there right away to check on it. If I see you have 2 finds, I may not be in such a rush to take a look.

May 10, 2004

Soooo......When you "police your logs"...........do you e-mail the person and what do you say?? I understand that on occasion, you can mistake one cache for another and the person has just made an error. Sometimes it's really obvious that the person didn't find the cache or sign the log. Is it appropriate for another cacher to e-mail the offending person and let them know that their name wasn't in the cache log and inquire as to why it's been logged as a find?

38.2k · May 10, 2004

Soooo......When you "police your logs"...........do you e-mail the person and what do you say?? I understand that on occasion, you can mistake one cache for another and the person has just made an error. Sometimes it's really obvious that the person didn't find the cache or sign the log. Is it appropriate for another cacher to e-mail the offending person and let them know that their name wasn't in the cache log and inquire as to why it's been logged as a find?

If it there is an online log, but no corresponding entry in the paper log, I'll e-mail the person and ask why. If they have a good explanation, I'll leave it. But if I notice a pattern of them always "forgetting to log", then it's bye-bye to their log.

Edited May 10, 2004 by briansnat

2.2k · May 10, 2004

Other people dont need to know how many caches Ive found.

Sure I do. If you post a DNF on one of my easier caches and I see you have 600 finds, I'll probably get out there right away to check on it. If I see you have 2 finds, I may not be in such a rush to take a look.

I dont care if you have 1000 finds. I wont make a run out to check on a cache of mine unless a few people post DNF's.

When you say that you wouldn't run out to check a DNF by someone with 2 finds and you would for someone with 600 finds, that just reinforces my point about people given more credibility simply because they have a higher find count.

In my book, someone with 2 finds is just as credible as someone with 1000 finds.

May 10, 2004

Is that for caches that you own?????????? What do you say to them?

38.2k · May 10, 2004

When you say that you wouldn't run out to check a DNF by someone with 2 finds and you would for someone with 600 finds, that just reinforces my point about people given more credibility simply because they have a higher find count.

For good reason. Experience counts for something.

May 10, 2004

i agree though.... those cheating, are only cheating themselves

Next time you go out to look for a cache because you see it has a fresh find, only to discover that it's been missing for weeks, or months you might sing a different tune (see my earlier post).

i'm with ya. didn't exactally think of that possibility at first. and yes, i guess by saying 'they're only cheating themselves' is saying they're not cheating the people that play fairly... which isn't true.

i guess i was thinking more in the 'be true to thine self' manner-of-thinking at the given moment

2.2k · May 10, 2004

When you say that you wouldn't run out to check a DNF by someone with 2 finds and you would for someone with 600 finds, that just reinforces my point about people given more credibility simply because they have a higher find count.

For good reason. Experience counts for something.

So, based on that logic, someone whos only found 2 caches cant possibly know anything about GPS, land navigation or anything else like that. There could be cachers out there with low find counts who know more about that stuff than any 3 people in here.

You cannot possibly formulate an accurate asessment of a person's skills and abilities based solely on the little number displayed next to their username.

May 10, 2004

...a system where you need to enter a code you find at a cache in order to log it...

[...snip]This system has been discussed in the GC.com forums with the following major comments.

1) Doh! I found your cache but wrote down the wrong code can you help me out!

2) "Pssst. Here is the code for the cache pass it on..."

definately good points. i think you'd have to have fair playing individuals finding the codes and redistributing them to unfair playing individuals, which i think would be difficult for cheaters to organize.

but, even while i believe most people would do the right thing... i do believe cheaters would go to almost any extent to cheat. especially on the social engineering score, saying they found the cache and forgot the code, or whatever :/

anyways, i guess they're good reasons to keep your eye on the logs for your cache

38.2k · May 10, 2004

You cannot possibly formulate an accurate asessment of a person's skills and abilities based solely on the little number displayed next to their username.

Someone with a handful of finds will simply not have been exposed to a wide variety of hiding methods, camoflage methods and types and sizes of containers. I don't care how good they are with a GPS and map. So I can indeed form an assessment of their skills. It will be a generalization, but I will be correct the majority of the time.

2k · May 10, 2004

Last week a cacher with 3 finds logged a DNF for one of my (harder) caches. I disabled the cache and checked on it for two reasons.

1) It was due for a maint. visit.

2) To encourage a new cacher to log DNF's.

If we blow off DNF's based on number of finds new members will not develop the habit of letting cache owners know when they faill to find a cache.

2.2k · May 10, 2004

Then just let those of us who want to, keep their stats personal. If you, or anyone else, want to not take me seriously because you dont know how many caches Ive found, then thats your choice. Just let me and anyone else who wants, choose to keep our stats private.

May 10, 2004

You cannot possibly formulate an accurate asessment of a person's skills and abilities based solely on the little number displayed next to their username.

Sure you can. It is an indicator of the persons geocaching experience level. A person with 1000 finds is more likley to have developed a skillset tailored for geocaching than the person who has only 5 finds. Land navigation, hiking, GPS usage are just a part of the geocaching skillset. Another part is experience in looking for the container. There are little 'signs' that you look for when in the search stage that the most avid of hikers may not notice because they are accustomed to walking through the woods and enjoying the bigger picture.

In my book the person with a 1000 finds will get a bit quicker attention to a DNF than one with 5 finds. In either case, I am inclined to go check the cache ASAP.

May 10, 2004

... Just let me and anyone else who wants, choose to keep our stats private.

You already have that "choice;" nothing is preventing your from keeping your stats "private." Don't log your finds online at all, or log them as "notes." Keep your own stats in a personal database.

38.2k · May 10, 2004

Then just let those of us who want to, keep their stats personal. If you, or anyone else, want to not take me seriously because you dont know how many caches Ive found, then thats your choice. Just let me and anyone else who wants, choose to keep our stats private.

Interesting that someone who is so concerned about keeping his stats private has the following in his profile:

Latest News:

11/3/03 #100

4/8/04 #200

Besides, as BP says, you can log notes, or log your find so the owner gets an e-mail, then delete it.

Edited May 10, 2004 by briansnat

24.7k · May 10, 2004

Last week a cacher with 3 finds logged a DNF for one of my (harder) caches. I disabled the cache and checked on it for two reasons.
1) It was due for a maint. visit.

2) To encourage a new cacher to log DNF's.

If we blow off DNF's based on number of finds new members will not develop the habit of letting cache owners know when they faill to find a cache.

The number of finds is an indicator. So is the rest of their log. It's a tool, nothing more, but certainly not worthless.

2.3k · May 10, 2004

Interesting that someone who is so concerned about keeping his stats private has the following in his profile:

Latest News:

11/3/03 #100

4/8/04 #200

Besides, as BP says, you can log notes, or log your find so the owner gets an e-mail, then delete it.

Well, at least no one knows EXACTLY how many caches they have...not a bad idea, it gives other cachers a general idea of how experienced they are...I like the idea of posting a note, instead of a find...it lets the owner and others read about your adventures...just as long as there is no way to track "notes".

Edited May 10, 2004 by TEAM 360

May 10, 2004

I wouldn't suggest removing the stats entirely (due, as you pointed out, to the uproar it would cause), but I'd love to have a way to disable my "found" counter and still be able to accurately log finds. The ability to 'opt-out' of displaying a find count on my logs would be very nice, though I find that the table in the profiles is very handy for a quick reference.

Even though I still find it puzzling that anyone would be that sensitive about their find count, I'm in agreement that there should be a way for user's to opt-out and keep all of their stats private.

Too many people take something like this and turn it into an all-out competition to rack up the biggest numbers. To a casual cacher like myself, there's nothing more distasteful than to have someone make a big deal of the fact that they've found more caches/TBs/Virtuals/Locationless than you, simply to boost their own ego.

Does this ever happen? I've been reading these forums for a year and a half. This site has had personal stats that whole time, and for nearly 2/3s of that time Dan's stat site kept stats that everyone could see. In that whole time I don't recall one instance of this ever happening.

I have nothing against those who do enjoy such activities - more power to them.

Good, then please don't remove stats entirely. Work with us to get a system implemented where users can opt out of having their personal stats listed. Also, those of us who are driven by competition would like to see a leaderboard in place. We're all for you having you being able to opt out of having your name listed there as well.

Please don't ruin other's fun by demanding that stats be removed entirely. You are causing just as much hard feelings and ill-will by doing that as you would be sparing by removing the stats.

My 2 cents. By the way, why does every thread seem to get twisted into anti-stat diatribe anymore?

--RuffRidr

Edited May 10, 2004 by RuffRidr

6.7k · May 10, 2004

Deleted

Edited May 10, 2004 by TheAlabamaRambler

38.2k · May 10, 2004

[personal attack, profanity and graphic sexual references deleted]

Edited May 10, 2004 by briansnat

2k · May 10, 2004

Last week a cacher with 3 finds logged a DNF for one of my (harder) caches. I disabled the cache and checked on it for two reasons.
1) It was due for a maint. visit.

2) To encourage a new cacher to log DNF's.

If we blow off DNF's based on number of finds new members will not develop the habit of letting cache owners know when they faill to find a cache.

The number of finds is an indicator. So is the rest of their log. It's a tool, nothing more, but certainly not worthless.

DNF's are also an indicator.

May 10, 2004

TheAlabamaRambler,

If there is an exploit method that someone can use to cheat and find FTFs, why isn't the site programmer fixing that code bug? Have they been informed?

Edited May 10, 2004 by kone

May 10, 2004

I wonder when this subject will be whinned over enough.

"Isn't there some way to stop that speeder from passing me on the highway?"

"Isn't there some way to stop....(enter your pet peve here)?"

Give it up. You can't play shoulds and oughts. It didn't work then, it doesn't work now, and probably never will.

2.3k · May 10, 2004

Everybody logs their finds, but too few log their DNF's....

24.7k · May 10, 2004

Last week a cacher with 3 finds logged a DNF for one of my (harder) caches. I disabled the cache and checked on it for two reasons.
1) It was due for a maint. visit.

2) To encourage a new cacher to log DNF's.

If we blow off DNF's based on number of finds new members will not develop the habit of letting cache owners know when they faill to find a cache.

The number of finds is an indicator. So is the rest of their log. It's a tool, nothing more, but certainly not worthless.

DNF's are also an indicator.

Especially when people log them. But that's another thread...

4k · May 10, 2004

When you say that you wouldn't run out to check a DNF by someone with 2 finds and you would for someone with 600 finds, that just reinforces my point about people given more credibility simply because they have a higher find count.

For good reason. Experience counts for something.

So, based on that logic, someone whos only found 2 caches cant possibly know anything about GPS, land navigation or anything else like that. There could be cachers out there with low find counts who know more about that stuff than any 3 people in here.

You cannot possibly formulate an accurate asessment of a person's skills and abilities based solely on the little number displayed next to their username.

And it's been shown in previous threads that those "more experienced" cachers are also more experienced at cheating and logging false finds to further pad their count.......I gotta agree, number of finds has no bearing on credibility.

38.2k · May 10, 2004

And it's been shown in previous threads that those "more experienced" cachers are also more experienced at cheating and logging false finds to further pad their count.

Really, where? Most experienced cachers I've met have very good reputations for integrity. There are cheaters, but I think they are really a small percentage and their level of experience has no bearing on their honesty. There are a few dishonest newbies and probably a similar percentage of dishonest experienced geoachers.

Edited May 10, 2004 by briansnat

May 10, 2004

As per any other game you play, when you cheat, you only cheat yourself out a fun time. Unless "it's all in the numbers" for you. I have yet to delete a log because the finder cheated. As with any group, there will always be a SMALL percentage of "baddies", it's just part of the game.

My $.02

4k · May 10, 2004

and the amount of experience has no bearing on their honesty.

yet this apparently doesn't apply to integrity? Hmmm.......

38.2k · May 10, 2004

when you cheat, you only cheat yourself out a fun time

Not true, for the reasons I stated earlier in this thread.

38.2k · May 10, 2004

yet this apparently doesn't apply to integrity? Hmmm.......

I think every experienced geocacher should be insulted by your accusations. You're painting them with a pretty broad brush.

7.2k · May 10, 2004

Too many people take something like this and turn it into an all-out competition to rack up the biggest numbers. To a casual cacher like myself, there's nothing more distasteful than to have someone make a big deal of the fact that they've found more caches/TBs/Virtuals/Locationless than you, simply to boost their own ego.

Does this ever happen? I've been reading these forums for a year and a half. This site has had personal stats that whole time, and for nearly 2/3s of that time Dan's stat site kept stats that everyone could see. In that whole time I don't recall one instance of this ever happening.

Then someone hasn't been paying attention.

3.1k · May 10, 2004

If people want to cheat, let them. The last time I checked, there was no competition for the highest find count. There are too many people who think that because they have a higher find count than someone else, they are somehow a better cacher.

The day they start issuing prizes for the highest find counts, Ill worry about cheaters. For now, the only people they are cheating, is themselves.

I actually agree. I don't care what the cheaters do especially on virtuals or locationless caches.

May 10, 2004

Then someone hasn't been paying attention.

That's possible. Could you humor me and cite some examples?

--RuffRidr

Cheaters !! Black List

Recommended Posts

Join the conversation