Jump to content

Secret/private/unreleased Caches


Followers 0

Recommended Posts

Over the years, there have been many threads pertaining to "private" caches that have not been listed (meaning: would not be permitted to be listed) on geocaching.com. I've done at least a dozen such caches myself, so obviously I have no problem with the concept of private caches.

 

But I recently noticed a new twist that disgusts me ... I noticed that one owner of private caches allows, and encourages, people to claim geocaching.com "finds" for his/her private caches by logging finds on archived geocaching.com caches "owned" by that individual.

 

No, I won't provide a link. I only want to know what others think of that practice.

 

My position is it is a gross abuse of cache owner privilege, and that geocaching.com might need to reconsider routinely allowing "finds" to be logged to archived caches.

 

Your thoughts?

Edited by BassoonPilot
Link to comment

I've done them too, and don't have a problem with the general idea of private caches. I *DO* have a problem if they are in areas that ban caches. Even if they aren't listed here, it doesn't matter. The places that have banned caches or required a permit don't say "we don't want caches that are listed on GC.com", they say "we don't want caches here". Doesn't matter what website it's listed on. If it's found by a land manager, it could undo all the work cachers are doing to try and reverse bans.

As for logging an archived GC cache, that's almost too stupid to believe. Do you need a friggin' smiley THAT bad? If you aren't finding a cache listed on gc.com, logging a smiley here is just plain cheating. This site doesn't track every little thing you've ever "found" with a GPS, it just tracks caches listed here you have found.

If you want to find caches on navicache, or secretcache.com (made up site), no problem. Just log them there.

Link to comment
I've done them too, and don't have a problem with the general idea of private caches. I *DO* have a problem if they are in areas that ban caches. Even if they aren't listed here, it doesn't matter. The places that have banned caches or required a permit don't say "we don't want caches that are listed on GC.com", they say "we don't want caches here". Doesn't matter what website it's listed on. If it's found by a land manager, it could undo all the work cachers are doing to try and reverse bans.

As for logging an archived GC cache, that's almost too stupid to believe. Do you need a friggin' smiley THAT bad? If you aren't finding a cache listed on gc.com, logging a smiley here is just plain cheating. This site doesn't track every little thing you've ever "found" with a GPS, it just tracks caches listed here you have found.

If you want to find caches on navicache, or secretcache.com (made up site), no problem. Just log them there.

Mopar pretty much summed it up. Rogue caches that break rules implemented by land managers give all cachers a black eye.

Link to comment
Do you need a friggin' smiley THAT bad?

As you know, yes, some folks truly seem to need the smiley that bad.

 

What I have found interesting is that some people will skip the "other" cache (Navicache, private label, etc.) that is KNOWN to be in the same park, etc. because they do not get a smiley. Even when it has been reported that the "other" cache is a better hunt than the smiley-getting cache, people just do not seem interested in the cache unless icon_smile.gif is attached to the log.

Link to comment

I think temporarily disabled caches should be loggable. I think archived caches shouldn't.

 

But if no one is paying attention (specifically the cache owner) to logs against an archived cache, I'm imagining these folks that log caches that aren't even listed on gc.com will find some cache that is still active but the owner is MIA and log it against that one in hopes that no one deletes it.

 

Just like hackers/virus writers, rogue cachers will find a way to pump up their find count using loop hole after loop hole. As long as those cachers aren't flaunting it or claiming some milestones/records that they truly haven't achieved I guess I wouldn't spend much time thinking about it.

Link to comment

Are we agreed, then, that it is an abuse of geocaching.com for cache owners to recommend/encourage/permit people to log "finds" on archived (or active, for that matter) for caches that have never been listed on geocaching.com?

 

To touch on a couple of the comments:

 

As for logging an archived GC cache, that's almost too stupid to believe. Do you need a friggin' smiley THAT bad? If you aren't finding a cache listed on gc.com, logging a smiley here is just plain cheating.

 

Apparently, some people will go to practically any extreme to increase their geocaching.com find count. But your comment appears to address only those who claim illegitimate finds ... what about the geocaching.com cache "owners" who encourage/permit people to log illegitimate "finds" to their archived cache pages?

 

Rogue caches that break rules implemented by land managers give all cachers a black eye.

 

True, but that was not a premise of the thread. It is entirely possible that a private cache merely fails to meet a geocaching.com guideline. (Such as type of cache, proximity to other caches, etc.)

 

You're either part of the community or you're not.

 

It's both entirely relevant and way off-topic for this thread, but I found that quote both humorous and ironic. I have often observed (especially regarding the issue of "private caches") that the people who are the quickest, most willing, or most active in circumventing "community standards" are very often the same people who consider themselves to be (and are even sometimes considered by others to be) the very epicenter of the community. It's a game unto itself.

Edited by BassoonPilot
Link to comment

there are several reasons i might hide a cache that won't be approved here. for instance, i love travelling caches and i love telescoping caches and neither are legal here. if it's my OWN private label i can make sure they're done responsibly, but i can't ask gc.com to list them.

 

i may wish to place a temporary cache, or a one-time only cache. neither of these is legal here, either.

 

it is VERY bad form to allow finders to log those caches here. i think owners who encourage this practice should be banned from this site. let them list their rogue caches other places, and count them there, too.

 

gc.com is not the be-all and end-all of geocaching everywhere. it is my listing service of choice, and the primary listing service of record, but it is a PRIVATE listing service and there's no reason why it should allow users to take advantage of it in this way.

Link to comment

Sounds like this abuse, and yes I think it is abuse, is minimal at best.

 

Of all the caches out there how many does this affect. 5,20,50. Even if its 100 that's about .001% of all the caches out there. Its not really a big deal.

 

Some people HAVE to have the smiles. Some people HAVE to try and stop them. at .001% its not worth anyones time to worry about it.

Edited by CO Admin
Link to comment
Some people HAVE to have the smiles. Some people HAVE to try and stop them. at .001% its not worth anyones time to worry about it.

Perhaps, but if this begins to grow - it's time to nip this in the bud. There is the real possibility that with no action on this it COULD become a problem. Then, when you do something about it, you will have an outcry.

 

sd

Link to comment
I think temporarily disabled caches should be loggable. I think archived caches shouldn't.

 

There are legit reasons for logging archived caches. To prevent it because a handful of people are abusing it doesn't make any sense.

 

I agree with BP and Mopar that this is very cheesy (hey, is this the first time Mopar ane BP ever agreed on something?) I've always been amazed at how low people will go to log a smiley, including claiming finds on caches that are missing, but this takes the cake :P .

 

There are just too many different ways to count finds.

 

There is really only one. You find a cache, you count it. At least that's the way this sport started. Some people however have stretched what a find is. There is a thread in The Hunt/The Unusual forum that has some amazing 'found it' logs. My favorite is the guy who claimed a find because he knew where the cache was. What BP brings up is just an extension of this mindset.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment
I think temporarily disabled caches should be loggable. I think archived caches shouldn't.

 

There are legit reasons for logging archived caches. To prevent it because a handful of people are abusing it doesn't make any sense.

How about logs against disabled/archived caches requires the cache owner to Ok the log before it's accepted?

Link to comment

How about logs against disabled/archived caches requires the cache owner to Ok the log before it's accepted?

It doesn't sound like it would matter in this case, since it seems the person who hid the private cache also owns the archived gc.com cache.

 

But I recently noticed a new twist that disgusts me ... I noticed that one owner of private caches allows, and encourages, people to claim geocaching.com "finds" for his/her private caches by logging finds on archived geocaching.com caches "owned" by that individual.

Link to comment

How about logs against disabled/archived caches requires the cache owner to Ok the log before it's accepted?

That wouldn't solve this "problem".

 

The owner is encouraging the find logs.

 

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

 

Now, I know I said something should be done - but I'm not advocating some change to the websites "coding". That's screw up people who have legitimate logs on archived caches. There are indeed reasons for this.

 

I think that perhaps a polite email to the loggers in question to let them know this isn't kosher. Of course we know how people take "polite emails" some times....

 

Another option would be for an approver to email the cache owner(s) in question to point out this is against the spirit of the game.... and might be skirting the rules/guidelines...

 

Then again - maybe those aren't good ideas either....

 

All I know for sure is something isn't right about this practice.

 

sd

Edited by southdeltan
Link to comment

How about logs against disabled/archived caches requires the cache owner to Ok the log before it's accepted?

It doesn't sound like it would matter in this case, since it seems the person who hid the private cache also owns the archived gc.com cache.

That's correct. Not in this case, but for logging against a cache that's no longer active with a cache owner that's no longer active would be prevented.

 

Just a thought on "all the other ways" this could be minimized.

Link to comment

I agree that the practice is not in keeping with the spirit of the sport, but I don't like to say it strongly, so I 'll just post Mopar's:

As for logging an archived GC cache, that's almost too stupid to believe. Do you need a friggin' smiley THAT bad?

 

:P However, that sin isn't listed in the ten commanements, so I'm not gonna get too upset. Don't think it'll change my life much.

Link to comment

OK, I'm man enough to admit I've made an extremely poor judgment call. I'm certain BP is talking about a private cache that I hid in my area although, I did reconsider it and took away the option of logging it on GC.com earlier this morning. You'll get no argument from me that is was incredibly cheesy and poor form on my part. What can I say, the thought popped in my head and I didn't think it through at all before acting on it.

 

I tell you this, it was all worth it to see Mopar and BassoonPilot agree on something and in fact to can add my lame @ss to that list as well.

 

For the record, the caches don't conform to GC.com guidelines but do adhere to the local laws and rules of the area and parks.

 

Flame away if you must. :P

Link to comment
I agree that the practice is not in keeping with the spirit of the sport, but I don't like to say it strongly, so I 'll just post Mopar's:
As for logging an archived GC cache, that's almost too stupid to believe. Do you need a friggin' smiley THAT bad?

 

:P However, that sin isn't listed in the ten commanements, so I'm not gonna get too upset. Don't think it'll change my life much.

yep. when you guys get it sorted out, i'll be over here coveting my neighbor's goods, his wife, and then i'm gonna go over to my mom's and mouth off.

Link to comment
I agree that the practice is not in keeping with the spirit of the sport, but I don't like to say it strongly, so I 'll just post Mopar's:
As for logging an archived GC cache, that's almost too stupid to believe. Do you need a friggin' smiley THAT bad?

 

:P However, that sin isn't listed in the ten commanements, so I'm not gonna get too upset. Don't think it'll change my life much.

yep. when you guys get it sorted out, i'll be over here coveting my neighbor's goods, his wife, and then i'm gonna go over to my mom's and mouth off.

Thanks for putting it in perspective.

Link to comment
However, that sin isn't listed in the ten commanements, so I'm not gonna get too upset.  Don't think it'll change my life much.

yep. when you guys get it sorted out, i'll be over here coveting my neighbor's goods, his wife, and then i'm gonna go over to my mom's and mouth off.

Thanks for putting it in perspective.

If I was reading this while the massive lightning cell that just passed by was going on, I would have thought maybe someone "up there" really did care about this :P

 

Hope you boys on LI get to enjoy the bright flashes, loud claps of thunder and torrential downpour us Jersey folks just had the pleasure of experiencing.

Link to comment
However, that sin isn't listed in the ten commanements, so I'm not gonna get too upset.  Don't think it'll change my life much.

yep. when you guys get it sorted out, i'll be over here coveting my neighbor's goods, his wife, and then i'm gonna go over to my mom's and mouth off.

Thanks for putting it in perspective.

If I was reading this while the massive lightning cell that just passed by was going on, I would have thought maybe someone "up there" really did care about this :P

 

Hope you boys on LI get to enjoy the bright flashes, loud claps of thunder and torrential downpour us Jersey folks just had the pleasure of experiencing.

Hey, my wife is trying to talk me into a hike right now. I thought about going to Ramapo to replace that Cache Ninja cache, but I don't do lightning.

Link to comment

The purpose of this thread is neither to identify nor point fingers at individuals; doing so serves only to obfuscate a legitimate issue that remains unaddressed, uncontrolled ... and ripe for continued abuse.

 

To quote from the opening post of the thread:

 

My position is it is a gross abuse of cache owner privilege, and that geocaching.com might need to reconsider routinely allowing "finds" to be logged to archived caches.

 

Note the use of the word "routinely." I submit that a mechanism is needed to prevent such abuse; I would suggest that after a cache has been archived, no logs could be posted to a cache without administration intervention and approval.

Edited by BassoonPilot
Link to comment
The purpose of this thread is neither to identify nor point fingers at individuals; doing so serves only to obfuscate a legitimate issue that remains unaddressed, uncontrolled ... and ripe for continued abuse.

 

To quote from the opening post of the thread:

 

My position is it is a gross abuse of cache owner privilege, and that geocaching.com might need to reconsider routinely allowing "finds" to be logged to archived caches.

 

Note the use of the word "routinely." I submit that a mechanism is needed to prevent such abuse; I would suggest that after a cache has been archived, no logs could be posted to a cache without administration intervention and approval.

And you know full well, and have been told many times before, that anything done (website coding wise) to prevent this "abuse" would cause more harm than good. Why keep trying to think up new ways to beat a dead horse?

Link to comment
The purpose of this thread is neither to identify nor point fingers at individuals; doing so serves only to obfuscate a legitimate issue that remains unaddressed, uncontrolled ... and ripe for continued abuse.

 

To quote from the opening post of the thread:

 

My position is it is a gross abuse of cache owner privilege, and that geocaching.com might need to reconsider routinely allowing "finds" to be logged to archived caches.

 

Note the use of the word "routinely." I submit that a mechanism is needed to prevent such abuse; I would suggest that after a cache has been archived, no logs could be posted to a cache without administration intervention and approval.

First, I appreciate that you were not pointing fingers BP.

 

Now on to the big picture. This might have the potential of being a problem. However, I'm sure the admins don't need more of a work load having to address people needing permission to log finds on archived caches. I don't see this being a major problem now but it if becomes one I imagine Groundspeak with figure something out. That's why they get paid the big bucks. :P

Edited by JMBella
Link to comment
The purpose of this thread is neither to identify nor point fingers at individuals; doing so serves only to obfuscate a legitimate issue that remains unaddressed, uncontrolled ... and ripe for continued abuse.

 

To quote from the opening post of the thread:

 

My position is it is a gross abuse of cache owner privilege, and that geocaching.com might need to reconsider routinely allowing "finds" to be logged to archived caches.

 

Note the use of the word "routinely." I submit that a mechanism is needed to prevent such abuse; I would suggest that after a cache has been archived, no logs could be posted to a cache without administration intervention and approval.

People have been known to falsely log real caches, as well as archived caches. I bet the former abuse is much more prevelant. Do we really need to make changes to prevent a handful of people from abusing the ability to log archived cacheds? It will inconvience an awful lot of people just to thwart a small group of cheaters.

Link to comment

im not really worried about cache log cheaters. i'm more concerned about people using gc.com to tote up results for caches that fall outside gc.com's guidelines. it sems like that could go south in a very bad way.

 

cheat all you like. i don't have to listen to your conscience, but if you get a landowner mad, i'll be ticked.

Link to comment
This might have the potential of being a problem. However, I'm sure the admins don't need more of a work load having to address people needing permission to log finds on archived caches.

 

The degree to which their workload would increase has not been established. I suspect, however, that the number of logs posted to archived caches would probably decrease simply because people became aware that controls had been instituted. (Those who had previously posted, or considered posting, fraudulent/illegitimate logs would be less likely to do so.)

 

People have been known to falsely log real caches, as well as archived caches. I bet the former abuse is much more prevelant. Do we really need to make changes to prevent a handful of people from abusing the ability to log archived cacheds? It will inconvience an awful lot of people just to thwart a small group of cheaters.

 

I agree that the former is probably more prevalent, but I also know that the latter takes place quite frequently. Presumably, logs posted to active caches are monitored by their involved and concerned owners; the same cannot be said for archived caches, many of which "belong" to inactive accounts and are therefore "uncontrolled."

 

It has not been established that only "a handful of people" are abusing the current system; neither has it been established that "an awful lot of people" would be inconvenienced. I think the opposite is probably true ... a small number of people would be slightly inconvenienced by the institution of a useful "safeguard."

 

And you know full well, and have been told many times before, that anything done (website coding wise) to prevent this "abuse" would cause more harm than good.

 

1. I know no such thing, and strongly suspect that neither do you.

2. Who has "told" whom; were the "tellers" website officials with actual knowledge of all that would be involved, or just an unknowledgeable party posting officiously?

Edited by BassoonPilot
Link to comment

2.  Who has "told" whom; were the "tellers" website officials with actual knowledge of all that would be involved, or just an unknowledgeable party posting officiously?

After checking with the Lily Pad, I was informed that my figure in this quote:

Even if its 100 that's about .001% of all the caches out there. Its not really a big deal.
Was high. its less than .001% of all caches. The lily pad did agree, however that its not a big enough problem to warrent dealing with at this time.
Link to comment

I have one observation about this topic. The words, "problem", "abuse" and "cheating" have been used.

 

None apply.

 

Since nobody is harmed by these behaviors, it's neither a problem, abusive, nor cheating.

 

This hobby obviously isn't a competition, as there isn't a level playing field among participants. Cheat doesn't apply as there's no gain!

 

Instead of being disgusted by such behaviors, why not be amused by them? For that matter, see it as an ego boost for yourself that you hold yourself to a perceived higher standard.

 

Yeesh,

 

Randy

Link to comment
I have one observation about this topic. The words, "problem", "abuse" and "cheating" have been used.

 

None apply.

 

Since nobody is harmed by these behaviors, it's neither a problem, abusive, nor cheating.

 

Also, I don't think I've seen "rude", "inappropriate", "unacceptable", and "unsuitable for children or families". If "puerile" shows its ugly face, we just might have some serious issues here. :blink:

Link to comment
Cheat doesn't apply as there's no gain!

 

There is a perceived (by many) status and celebrity that goes with a high find count. This is reinforced at events, when a 'heavy hitter" often arrives to much acclaim and gets lots of attention (witness the guy bowing to Stayfloopy in the WB11 news clip in another thread).

 

There has to be some benefit, because otherwise so many people wouldn't be fudging their numbers.

 

  The words, "problem", "abuse" and "cheating" have been used.

 

None apply.

 

The point of cache logs on this website are to report our experiences while hunting caches listed here. To use them for other purposes is indeed an abuse. I realize that text logs don't take up a lot of storage space, but why should GC.COM devote even 1 byte to host logs for caches that are listed elsewhere?

 

For that matter, see it as an ego boost for yourself that you hold yourself to a perceived higher standard.

 

As if having standards is a bad thing.

 

Instead of being disgusted by such behaviors, why not be amused by them

 

Sure, and the angels want to wear my red shoes.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment
After checking with the Lily Pad ... The lily pad did agree ...

 

If you hadn't made up those numbers or answered the question totally out of context, I might have taken your responses seriously. But you did, and I don't.

 

I have one observation about this topic. The words, "problem", "abuse" and "cheating" have been used.

 

None apply.

 

Since nobody is harmed by these behaviors, it's neither a problem, abusive, nor cheating.

 

Hmm. You think?

Edited by BassoonPilot
Link to comment
After checking with the Lily Pad ... The lily pad did agree ...

 

If you hadn't made up those numbers or answered the question totally out of context, I might have taken your responses seriously. But you did, and I don't.

 

I have one observation about this topic. The words, "problem", "abuse" and "cheating" have been used.

 

None apply.

 

Since nobody is harmed by these behaviors, it's neither a problem, abusive, nor cheating.

 

Hmm. You think?

The numbers are not made up. I rounded down so I could do the math in my head. As for out of context. I was clairifing my original post in light of your comments so it was in context.

 

The point being, it isn't a big problem just because a few people think it is. The reviewes get very few (I have never had any) complaints about finds on archived caches.

 

Im not saying i dont agree that its not right. Im saying there isnt enough or a problem to bother with.

Link to comment
Rogue caches that break rules implemented by land managers give all cachers a black eye.

 

True, but that was not a premise of the thread.

Yes, but it's the only thing that matters.

 

Everything else is just cachers playing their own games in different ways, which they will do no matter what, and shouldn't concern you, me or GC.com. It doesn't bother me in the least - as long as no damage to geocaching is done, and no hard volunteer PR work to promote the game is being undone.

 

And as to that: TPTB have spoken: impact is minimal. CO-Admin mentioned that this would be less 0.001% of the caches, and only that if there are 100 caches like that, and even then, in some cases this would not cause any bad publicity or other impact (temporary ones, for instance).

 

This issue should be the least of anyone's concerns.

 

I would actually argue for a widely publicised virtual where anyone can log as many smileys as they like, without having to do anything for it. On the one hand that will deflate the importance of the number count because anyone could have 5000 finds in a day, if they should wish, and on the other hand allow anyone to play their own game the way they like it.

Link to comment

I don't see the difference between this and "temporary" caches at an event cache being logged as multiple finds on an event cache, assuming that the reason the cache is private isn't to get around rules (other than "administrative" rules such as temporary caches).

 

--Marky

Link to comment
The point being, it isn't a big problem just because a few people think it is.

 

Im not saying i dont agree that its not right. Im saying there isnt enough or a problem to bother with.

It's a problem, pure and simple. "Big" is your word; not mine.

 

It is indisputable fact that both cache owners and cache finders abuse the privilege/ability to log "finds" on archived caches ... it is no secret that some people routinely log finds on archived caches even years after the cache was archived and removed.

 

Over the years, we have witnessed numerous changes to the website described by site administrators as having been implemented "proactively," meaning the issue being addressed had never occurred. So why is it that known issues are so often dismissed as being "not enough of a problem to deal with?"

Link to comment
I don't see the difference between this and "temporary" caches at an event cache being logged as multiple finds on an event cache.

 

I agree. They are similarly sleazy practices.

 

I would actually argue for a widely publicised virtual where anyone can log as many smileys as they like, without having to do anything for it. On the one hand that will deflate the importance of the number count because anyone could have 5000 finds in a day, if they should wish, and on the other hand allow anyone to play their own game the way they like it.

 

What was it the character "Pogo" once said? "We have seen the enemy, and he is us."

Link to comment
...
Rogue caches that break rules implemented by land managers give all cachers a black eye.

 

True, but that was not a premise of the thread. It is entirely possible that a private cache merely fails to meet a geocaching.com guideline. (Such as type of cache, proximity to other caches, etc.)...

Fair enough. On the topic itself I think using the GC.com site to log off-caches is a sleazy practice. Maybe it's only a minor occurrence but I do think that our logs and our caches and the story they tell (though not the container itself) are a treasure for the entire geocaching community to share.

 

To purposely distort the history is not something I like seeing happen. It devalues all of our efforts.

Edited by Renegade Knight
Link to comment

Briansnat

There has to be some benefit, because otherwise so many people wouldn't be fudging their numbers.

 

Actually, that's self-delusion--hardly a benefit.

 

point of cache logs...  ...To use them for other purposes is indeed an abuse.

 

Oh geez, if I'd noticed that in the TOS, I'd never have written any of those entertaining logs linked to in my profile. Heck, another cacher's logs are purely entertaining, barely referencing the cache itself at all!

 

Then again, more logs provide more revenue/page views... So it makes money. Abusive to gc.com? Hardly.

 

The cache placer obviously enjoys it, and so do the users evidently.

 

As if having standards is a bad thing.

 

!? Actually, I said, "perceived higher standard", referencing those that practice what this thread complains about. I'm surprised you want to be lumped in with them! {wink} Secondly, I was suggesting that's how those individuals delude themselves by stroking their own egos.

 

This is just like masturbatory theater. The audience doesn't care and doesn't benefit any since they aren't entertained. The performers however, think it's good--they're just deluding themselves.

 

The amusing part, by trying to make an issue out of nothing consequential, lends credence to the practice.

 

I reiterate, what are the actual negative consequences of the practice?

 

Anyone? Anyone? Bueler? Buuueler?

 

Randy

 

PS: Actually, it's kinda' amusing to see so much discussion over others' self-delusions with no ramifications. It's the most discussion regarding nothing I've ever seen!

Link to comment

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

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