Bogus Logs

3.7k · December 23, 2004

Travel bugs are protected from bogus "finds", by the need to actually obtain the tracking number before being able to make a log entry. Caches are just left to a "trust" system. Cache owners can check the log in the physical cache, of course, but it may be months between visits, the log book may become damaged or destroyed, or the cache may be "muggled" before the check takes place.

We've had several cases now where "geocachers" have thought it acceptable or amusing to log a find when they've not actually found the container. That doesn't pose any threat to the pastime generally, although it does cause hassle for the cache owner, and downright annoyance in some cases :angry: .

Wouldn't it be better if geocaching.com allowed the option of protecting your cache from bogus "visitors" by forcing the finder to use a password before the internet log entry "found it" can be made? Obviously, the password would be written in the cache (on the log book and box), or in the case of a Virtual, available by e-mail (thus also saving embarrassment when a geocacher logs the find but cannot confirm it by e-mail). The "finder" would have to be aware that the password is necessary - should they forget to make a note of it they can always contact the cache owner who will be able to supply it once they're happy that the cache was actually visited.

Anyone agree?

HH

December 23, 2004

Only problem I would see is if you forget the password. I've forgotten what swaps I've made before and also had cache sheets where they have been carefully noted destroyed by the rain.

Maybe it's easy if you're just a car cacher, but when you walk between caches it's a little harder to remain organised and nor just end up with a clump of paper randomly shoved into the dryest part of you rucksac.

3.8k · December 23, 2004

In one cache I did a while back there was a note on the front of the log book that told the cache finder to use the words 'took sticker' somewhere in their log on the cache page otherwise the log would be deleted.

Just had a look at the logs and there are one or two that don't use the 'code phrase' but have not been deleted.

6.2k · December 23, 2004

Any cache log which describes the environ or experience of finding the cache is usually a bit of a give-away. It's only short 'TNLN-TFTC' logs that I tend not to be sure about. I suppose someone could read previous logs and concoct a suitable story, but that sounds like too much hard work for the sort of 'fake' caching I've seen done. If anything I think caching in the field but not logging the finds on the site is a more 'serious' problem, especially when it comes to TBs.

SP

3.7k · December 23, 2004

Dave,

The same problem occurs if you pick up a travel bug and drop it again the same day (or later), and forget to note the tracking number. If you're logging a virtual cache you also have a need to take a note unless your memory is really reliable.

If it was normal practice to have to note the password, I think people would soon get used to the routine. The password could be a short and simple word so it's easy to note it down correctly.

Should you visit a dozen caches in a day then lose the passwords you've collected - well, you'll just have to spend a bit of time writing up your logs as "notes" and making sure you contact the cache owners begging for the password - including a specific mention of the cache hiding place. Then convert the notes to finds once allowed.

If the finder's memory is so bad that he/she can't remember the cache hiding places - hard luck, they'll have to return (how were they going to write up the logs then anyway? ).

HH

6.2k · December 23, 2004

I think you have a good idea there HH, but I'm always wary of adding 'hassle' for everyone to something just because of the actions of a minute minority. If we go that route the end result could well be premium membership for everyone to protect caches, which would discourage new players.

Personally I keep a notebook of the caches I visit with a time, date and any swaps so noting a 'password' wouldn't be a problem for me but I can see why it could cause big issues with people who like to hit big numbers on a day and don't tend to swap.

SP

December 23, 2004

This sounds like overkill to me. There have been nearly 1,000 finds recorded against our caches so far and I've had no reason to doubt that any of them are genuine.

There's already a significant minority out there who don't log caches online. This would just add to their numbers.

December 23, 2004

Without a doubt HH introducing a secret log-in number, similar to TB's, would put an end to this annoying practice of virtual logging of caches....but I think this behaviour has a limited shelf life anyway and any attempt to forcibly control it would involve using a sledge hammer to crack a nut (pun intended!! ).

Only someone very juvenile (in either years or mentality) would want to do this in the first place and eventually the fun will wear thin after a very short period.

Unfortunately (as you spotted yourself on the other thread) any discussion of this (for the most part harmless) prank only serves to add interest for the perpetrator and help to encourage the practice... at least in the short run.

It's a bit like a naughty child wanting attention....if you ignore it... the child soon gets bored and moves on to something more interesting

Bill.

3.7k · December 23, 2004

Plenty of good points there, and I guess the idea is "overkill" in the majority of cases. Perhaps this would only be appropriate where the cache takes a lot of finding.

Like Pharisee, I've seen caches where the owner has attempted some sort of verification system. I just thought that if "Password protected finds" was an option (not compulsory) when setting up the cache on geocaching.com, it would be a useful facility rather than having to come up with various custom methods of achieving the same thing. It could be used in other ways too: for instance, if you have a four-stage multicache, then each stage can contain a fragment of the password - which would thwart the efforts of those who use local knowledge to bypass your beautifully-crafted route to the final cache!

To me, it's actually quite satisfying to complete a cache find by proving that you've actually been there, even though there is a little extra effort involved. I have the feeling that if geocaching.com had realised how widespread the game would become they would have built in some "find verification" facility from day one, and we'd all accept it as part of the game.

I don't think fake cachers will gain much satisfaction from discussions like this, by the way, as long as we talk in generalities rather than specific cases. It sounds like some cachers aren't even sure that they really have to sign the log book, though!

HH

December 23, 2004

Quote "would have built in some find verification" they have it's called the log book!!!!

Seasons Greetings to one and all

December 23, 2004

Quote "would have built in some find verification" they have it's called the log book!!!!

I agree, a really important part of cache ownership is verifying the finds on the webpage vs the written logs. This is often neglected by cache owners.

1.7k · December 23, 2004

I agree, a really important part of cache ownership is verifying the finds on the webpage vs the written logs. This is often neglected by cache owners.

I don't agree. It's not my job to police other people's numbers.

I've refused bogus log entries to some of my virtual caches though where the wrong answer to the verification question has been given.

1.4k · December 23, 2004

I don't agree. It's not my job to police other people's numbers.

I've refused bogus log entries to some of my virtual caches though where the wrong answer to the verification question has been given.

Same here,

I've deleted where people are obviously extracting the urine but other than that I have real trouble seeing what difference it makes in the big scheme of things, or what they hope to gain from it.

Happy Christmas Everyone.

Chris

December 23, 2004

I agree, a really important part of cache ownership is verifying the finds on the webpage vs the written logs. This is often neglected by cache owners.

I don't agree. It's not my job to police other people's numbers.

I've refused bogus log entries to some of my virtual caches though where the wrong answer to the verification question has been given.

Of course it is your job as the cache owner. When you make a visit to one of your caches you should check that geocachers who have claimed the find have also signed the notebook. It's a simple control and is ultimatly your responsibility. We seem to be all agreed that to claim a find you have to have signed the book. It's a simple check that should be carried out when you make maintainance visits.

December 23, 2004

I'll just carry on going out for nice walks and finding the occasional tupperware if that's ok with you guys

Stu

1.7k · December 23, 2004

Of course it is your job as the cache owner.

Says who?

I'm not wasting my time checking up on anyone who wants to play cheat. I've got better things to do than that.

3.7k · December 23, 2004

Stu,

Of course it's OK, and I'd like it to stay that way! We're only discussing how to keep things like that - if you just find caches and sign log books (and log finds online) then you can ignore this topic.

But you must have noticed that when you pick up a travel bug you have to note the tracking number before you can log your action on the internet site - all I was asking was whether it would be a good idea to extend that formality to caches as well.

"Not necessary" was the general opinion - fair enough: this is what the forum is for.

Merry Christmas!

HH

December 23, 2004

To be honest, as geocaching is not a numbers competition my base opinion is that it doesn't really matter if someone is desparate enough to make a visit up. That a cache owner should spend time checking each log against the logbook is silly IMO, simply for the faff involved in leafing through it all.

This sport/game is what people want to make of it and nothing more. You could say people who don't log Fail to Finds are equally guilty of making bonus logs, as they are letting down the cache owner too! The vast majority of cachers would not dream of claiming caches they hadn't been too and I'm happy with that.

December 23, 2004

We seem to be all agreed that to claim a find you have to have signed the book.

We certainly agree that that's a principle - I don't think it can be anything stronger then that. Why not? Well, in the last six weeks, I've found several caches (three, possibly) where the log was so wet/festered/half-eaten that no proper sig could be added.

Klaus's point only holds where caches are properly and regularly maintained. Unfortunately (in Ireland, at any rate) a number of them are not.

1.4k · December 23, 2004

Of course it is your job as the cache owner.

I never signed up for that! We placed our caches to introduce people to interesting places that we knew. If they would rather claim a find by not visiting then its their loss.

Chris

1.4k · December 23, 2004

Just another thought:

Personally I (Chris) am a committed cheat, I will and have cheated at almost every game/activity that I have ever taken part in. Thats the way I am - if there is an easier way to get to the goal I will take it, its the winning thats important not the taking part.

But I don't cheat at caching (anyone who sees the number of DNFs we log would know that), why? Because I can see absolutly no point, I wouldn't have had a nice day out I would be just sitting in front of a computer all day and I can get paid to do that.

So in this case a cheat is only really hurting themselves arn't they?

Chris

December 23, 2004

Is this a 10 minute argument or the full half hour..??

December 23, 2004

I think a few of us (and I include myself) tend to take this game/pastime/sport just a wee bit too seriously

Enthusiasm is fine as long as we keep a firm grip on our general perspective and realise that it is not the most important activity in our lives and we are supposed to be having fun, visiting places we probably would never have visited and just as importantly... making friends!

As I pointed out this virtual cacher is not doing any real harm....nor are those who are reluctant to log DNF's....so as much as aspects such as these might irk our sense of rightness....they in no way detract from our pleasure in pursuing geocaching....they are merely minor annoyances to those who let them be

Bill.

3.7k · December 23, 2004

Lost In Space,

I'd argue that this is NOT an argument, so there!

You need to go next door for Arguments...try a football forum

Ullium, Chris,

My sentiments entirely, but there has to be some sort of etiquette, and this is bound to get discussed in a friendly fashion from time to time when people appear to be unclear on standard practice...hopefully we're capable of keeping the tone appropriate for people discussing finding tupperware in woods using multi-million pound satellite equipment....

HH

December 23, 2004

I'll just carry on going out for nice walks and finding the occasional tupperware if that's ok with you guys

Stu

Best forum post ever!

December 23, 2004

Ullium, Chris,
My sentiments entirely, but there has to be some sort of etiquette, and this is bound to get discussed in a friendly fashion from time to time when people appear to be unclear on standard practice...hopefully we're capable of keeping the tone appropriate for people discussing finding tupperware in woods using multi-million pound satellite equipment....

HH

Couldn't agree with you more there HH

It is most important that one choses one's words carefully on an open forum such that they reduce the possibility of misconception

Too many posters seem to be unable to resist the opportunity to have a dig at others ... and it can be very hurtful

BTW...I am not in any way referring to myself....I am thinking of one other particular cacher who is being subjected to unnecessary personal comments...albeit for the most part most of us would not be aware of this happening.

Bill.

1.7k · December 23, 2004

Is this a 10 minute argument or the full half hour..??

I've told you once....

December 23, 2004

I've told you once....

Did you log it???

December 23, 2004

If people want to log a find they have not visited, then I guess its up to them, it makes no difference to me, as at the end of the day it is them who are missing out. I would never dream of removing a log from any of my caches unless it was offensive, and I guess under those circumstances it would have been deleted anyhow. In life you will always get cheats, but in the end what is the point, I cannot imagine why anyone would even want to log a cache they hadn't found as it does not exactly increase your social status does it? In the end this is a niche hobby/interest and everyone will get from it what they want.

December 23, 2004

If people want to log a find they have not visited, then I guess its up to them, it makes no difference to me, as at the end of the day it is them who are missing out. I would never dream of removing a log from any of my caches unless it was offensive, and I guess under those circumstances it would have been deleted anyhow. In life you will always get cheats, but in the end what is the point, I cannot imagine why anyone would even want to log a cache they hadn't found as it does not exactly increase your social status does it? In the end this is a niche hobby/interest and everyone will get from it what they want.

Well Said

1.8k · December 23, 2004

If people want to log a find they have not visited, then I guess its up to them, it makes no difference to me, as at the end of the day it is them who are missing out. I would never dream of removing a log from any of my caches unless it was offensive, and I guess under those circumstances it would have been deleted anyhow. In life you will always get cheats, but in the end what is the point, I cannot imagine why anyone would even want to log a cache they hadn't found as it does not exactly increase your social status does it? In the end this is a niche hobby/interest and everyone will get from it what they want.

Well Said

Hear, hear!

And like Alex I've better things to do than comparing logs in the cache with those on the web.

December 24, 2004

Hear, hear!
And like Alex I've better things to do than comparing logs in the cache with those on the web.

That means that you, as mentioned, cannot be bothered maintaining your caches.

I agree with an honesty system, but can you really say that you will not do anything to even vaguely uphold the honesty style of logging you accept to be the be all and end all. Under the Geocaching.com guidelines you are required to maintain your caches. This includes the logbook and its contents.

I'm not advocating the setup of the Orwellian Thought Police, but the community must act as it's own controlling body.

It's all fair and well sitting at home, looking at certain logs mentioned recently and saying "Ohh, I just know that's all rubbish."

Well, the cold, hard fact is that you will not know until you have been to your cache and looked at your logbook and checked that the person has not been there.

I feel like I am barking up a tree.

December 24, 2004

Hear, hear!
And like Alex I've better things to do than comparing logs in the cache with those on the web.

That means that you, as mentioned, cannot be bothered maintaining your caches.

I agree with an honesty system, but can you really say that you will not do anything to even vaguely uphold the honesty style of logging you accept to be the be all and end all. Under the Geocaching.com guidelines you are required to maintain your caches. This includes the logbook and its contents.

I'm not advocating the setup of the Orwellian Thought Police, but the community must act as it's own controlling body.

It's all fair and well sitting at home, looking at certain logs mentioned recently and saying "Ohh, I just know that's all rubbish."

Well, the cold, hard fact is that you will not know until you have been to your cache and looked at your logbook and checked that the person has not been there.

I feel like I am barking up a tree.

Well whatever tree you are barking up Klaus23 ... I am also barking up the same tree!

And I can hardly believe there are that many cachers who are willing to have their caches logged without being actually visited and the log books signed??

I can however see that it might be a pain in the butt for them to check it out by having to visit their caches more often than they might be inclined to....and therefore be tempted to just argue that it doesn't matter anyway!!

Bill.

2.2k · December 24, 2004

Hear, hear!
And like Alex I've better things to do than comparing logs in the cache with those on the web.

That means that you, as mentioned, cannot be bothered maintaining your caches.

I agree with an honesty system, but can you really say that you will not do anything to even vaguely uphold the honesty style of logging you accept to be the be all and end all. Under the Geocaching.com guidelines you are required to maintain your caches. This includes the logbook and its contents.

I'm not advocating the setup of the Orwellian Thought Police, but the community must act as it's own controlling body.

It's all fair and well sitting at home, looking at certain logs mentioned recently and saying "Ohh, I just know that's all rubbish."

Well, the cold, hard fact is that you will not know until you have been to your cache and looked at your logbook and checked that the person has not been there.

I feel like I am barking up a tree.

Well whatever tree you are barking up Klaus23 ... I am also barking up the same tree!

And I can hardly believe there are that many cachers who are willing to have their caches logged without being actually visited and the log books signed??

I can however see that it might be a pain in the butt for them to check it out by having to visit their caches more often than they might be inclined to....and therefore be tempted to just argue that it doesn't matter anyway!!

Bill.

Look you play the game how you want to and I will play how I want, is that ok?

That means I will not be checking the logs in my caches. I paid visits to two of mine and certainly did not Police the logs.

December 24, 2004

Hear, hear!
And like Alex I've better things to do than comparing logs in the cache with those on the web.

That means that you, as mentioned, cannot be bothered maintaining your caches.

That's a hell of a leap you make. How do you get from not cross checking a log to not maintaining a cache?

Where does it say thou shall cross check the log as part of the maintainence?

If you want to go to those lengths then that's fine but another cacher shouldn't be accused of not maintaining caches because they choose to do it differently from you.

December 24, 2004

If you want to go to those lengths then that's fine but another cacher shouldn't be accused of not maintaining caches because they choose to do it differently from you.

Yes I suppose we must be a bit realistic about the maintenance of caches....for the most part if a cacher has quite a number of placed caches they could not be expected to be running round them doing maintenance checks all that often.

For the most part I imagine that most will only do a maintenance check if something in their internet logs suggested that it might be worth their time and effort to do so....and apart from the occasional visit to their caches that would be all that might be expected of anyone.

Certainly bogus logs presents a different problem and if one can be reasonably certain that it is a bogus log, then deleting it and emailing the logger would appear a reasonable approach?

In any case let us all not be at odds because of one individual who is playing the game in a very strange way!!

Bill.

3.8k · December 24, 2004

And I can hardly believe there are that many cachers who are willing to have their caches logged without being actually visited and the log books signed??

I can however see that it might be a pain in the butt for them to check it out by having to visit their caches more often than they might be inclined to....and therefore be tempted to just argue that it doesn't matter anyway!!

Bill.

So when you get an email in saying that somebody has logged one of your caches . do you go straight away? I read all the logs written but dont cross check them with the online log. so I must be wrong as well, but at least I am in good company.

1.4k · December 24, 2004

Well, the cold, hard fact is that you will not know until you have been to your cache and looked at your logbook and checked that the person has not been there.

Klaus - heres a direct question for you. What exactly does it matter if people are looging caches they have never been too? Where is the bad?

Chris

1.7k · December 24, 2004

To me, maintaining a cache means checking the cache itself every so often, although we are sometimes guilty of only checking if there is a problem reported.

We read the logbooks, but only because we like to, and not to check against what is logged online. I have no reason to believe anyone who has logged our caches online has not found the cache they logged.

T

December 24, 2004

And I can hardly believe there are that many cachers who are willing to have their caches logged without being actually visited and the log books signed??

I can however see that it might be a pain in the butt for them to check it out by having to visit their caches more often than they might be inclined to....and therefore be tempted to just argue that it doesn't matter anyway!!

Bill.

So when you get an email in saying that somebody has logged one of your caches . do you go straight away? I read all the logs written but dont cross check them with the online log. so I must be wrong as well, but at least I am in good company.

I'm not quite certain I understand completely what you are saying there Deego? Probably my fault not your's

That post came out a bit harder than I would have wished and perhaps I could have put the point a bit more diplomatically <_<

As I said in my last post....I think we have to be realistic in our approach to events like bogus logging !!

I wouldn't expect everyone to cross check their physical logs with there online ones ... unless they felt there was a need to !! (Is that what you meant?)

Also...I don't remember suggesting anyone was 'wrong'...just that I may not have agreed with their opinion ... which is everyone's privilege!!

Anyway...A very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you and yours Deego and lets hope we can all see an end to all this backbiting in 2005 eh?

Bill.

P.S. as soon as I can work out how to send PM's I will reply to your friendly PM to me....gee I hate being old :lol:

1.7k · December 24, 2004

To quote the infamous Dan Wilson

Why take it so seriously, after all, it's just a hunt for a lunchbox!

Or something like that anyway.

Why are so many peeps getting so uptight about this? If this is what floats the Virtual Cachers boat then let him/her get on with it, although personally I have to admit I'm not sure what he/she is trying to prove <_< .

Sorry, the five minutes is up :lol:

Edited December 24, 2004 by Phillimore Clan

6.2k · December 24, 2004

That was never five minutes...

SP

1.8k · December 24, 2004

Hear, hear!
And like Alex I've better things to do than comparing logs in the cache with those on the web.

That means that you, as mentioned, cannot be bothered maintaining your caches.

Maintenance of caches for me means making sure that they are available for finding and contents in reasonable condition. So if I have a series of reports that all is well I don't pay a visit, but if there are DNFs or a report that the box is full of water or otherwise not OK, out I go.

That is why it is very helpful for logs to include remarks like Paul Young leaves, such as "cache in good order".

1.7k · December 24, 2004

That was never five minutes...

SP

YES IT WAS

3.7k · December 24, 2004

Please don't read this if you don't think we should be discussing the etiquette of geocaching - this is just for the sad few that take it all too seriously! <_<

And Happy Christmas to everyone! :lol:

If this is what floats the Virtual Cachers boat

I didn't start the topic specifically about this case - there have been other recent discussions where people have obviously been cheeky or have cheated a bit (e.g. gone to the cache site and spent so long looking they thought they deserved to log it).

What exactly does it matter if people are looging caches they have never been too?

I agree it's not going to destroy the game - I think we all realise that - but to just say "who cares" all the time seems kind of negative. It is supposed to be a game, just like golf is a game. If we were playing golf and I decided that it didn't matter whether we cheated or not I could still play, but the game would lose a little something and we'd probably not even bother finishing the round.

We don't need such strict rules as golf, obviously, because we're not competing with each other (except on a very friendly and casual basis) but we need to have a few assurances. One of them is that all logs that say "found it" are written by people who actually found the box - these logs are useful to the owner and the next seekers, even if only to confirm that the cache was there last week. If someone logs that they found it, and later it turns out that the box had gone missing before their log was posted, to the question"who cares" I'd answer "the cache owner and the next person who attempts to find it". If the cache hasn't been found and the FTF is bogus, "who cares" - ask the cache owner whether he/she has really enjoyed the experience of setting up a cache and the only log is by someone who hasn't even bothered to find it. Often there won't be another attempt for a long time as the prized FTF has seemingly been taken.

Luckily this type of behaviour is rare, and I think that this discussion has highlighted that there isn't enough of a problem to warrant any real action. Perhaps we should at least check any logs which have a hint of suspicion, though, and be prepared to delete them if proved bogus, on behalf of those that might be slightly inconvenienced by misleading information.

HH

3.7k · December 24, 2004

That was never five minutes...

I'd booked the full half hour...

1.4k · December 24, 2004

It is supposed to be a game, just like golf is a game. If we were playing golf and I decided that it didn't matter whether we cheated or not I could still play, but the game would lose a little something and we'd probably not even bother finishing the round.

Actually i recon it would make it a lot more interesting. but then I would wouldnt I.

Chris

3.7k · December 24, 2004

Chris,

I'd wait for you in the "19th hole" and buy you a pint when you finished whatever it was you'd decided to do on the golf course <_< ! Particularly in this weather - it's almost dark outside and the rain's pouring down...no wonder we're talking instead of doing anything.

HH

1.4k · December 24, 2004

Well I'm only here as I am sitting around at work waiting for them to tell me I can go home. ...

Merry Christmas to everyone.

Chris

December 24, 2004

If we were playing golf and I decided that it didn't matter whether we cheated or not I could still play, but the game would lose a little something and we'd probably not even bother finishing the round.

Off-topic, but strangely relevant... this quote reprises the myth that Golfers play their game honestly and in accordance with the rules.

In fact, (and as a serving Rules Official, I know wherof I speak) there is more 'cheating' to be seen on golf courses than any other field of sport I can think of, except possibly F1 motor racing. :lol:

Apart from those who simply wish to obtain an unfair advantage, this usually happens because there exists a body of golfers (from weekend hackers to tour pros) who are too lazy to find out how the game should be played - or, having done so, are too stupid to understand the complexities.

It could be that there are some geocachers (virtual or otherwise) in the same category... <_<

Bogus Logs

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