Another Faker Busted

2.3k · January 3, 2005

Well... I have caught another faker on my locationless cache. He may have taken the pics, but he sure didn't have the GPS in the pic as I require in the rules. I checked his gallery, and yep... every single GPS is the same. Same angle, same lighting, etc. I work in advertising, and the programs I use include Photoshop. I can spot when work has been done.

It's a given that I'm going to delete the guy's finds, and check back if he found any others targets of mine on Dash for Cache, and check the Cigar Store Indian logs.

I guess the only question is, should I alert the other locationless owners? I don't want this to come across as an attack, just "being fair."

24.7k · January 3, 2005

Good question.

Go with your gut.

20.7k · January 3, 2005

I see nothing wrong with you emailing other lc/virt owners about the issue. They can take action as they see fit.

3k · January 3, 2005

wf_fuzzy once made up the Doot It Yourself Locationless Cache Generator as a joke. It puts "the hand" in any picture. He did it as a joke, because someone was faking pictures. I still have the link to it in my favorites, LOL! It was brought up a long time ago, in the forums. Here's the original hand thread. Does the hand look anything like the one here?

Edited January 3, 2005 by Planet

8.1k · January 3, 2005

Geesh! You would think that he would crop it, rotate it and darken it a little!!!

7.4k · January 3, 2005

As a fellow locationless cache owner, let me say "thank you" for taking the effort to maintain your locationless cache! I also caught a cheater on my cache some time ago and it was not a fun situation. Looking through his LC finds it was apparent that he had cheated many, many times over. I called him on it and he ended up deleting the incriminating photos, but not the associated logs. He now has several LC logs that do not include the required photo proof, so it might be good to occasionally check through old logs and make sure that they still meet the logging requirements.

6.5k · January 3, 2005

As long as joe keeps creating targets that are only a block from work I have no reason to fake it.

Not that I would anyway, because that's just plain wrong and the act of desperate losers. I'll bet they don't have any interesting DNF logs to read either.

2.3k · January 3, 2005

As a fellow locationless cache owner, let me say "thank you" for taking the effort to maintain your locationless cache! I also caught a cheater on my cache some time ago and it was not a fun situation. Looking through his LC finds it was apparent that he had cheated many, many times over. I called him on it and he ended up deleting the incriminating photos, but not the associated logs. He now has several LC logs that do not include the required photo proof, so it might be good to occasionally check through old logs and make sure that they still meet the logging requirements.

Most of the groundwork and rules were already in place when I adopted the cache, thank goodness. It's a popular cache, and a lot of fun, but it can indeed be a devil to maintain! But yeah, to be fair to everyone, I have to be pretty strict with the rules. After all, that was part of the "promise" when I took on this beast of a cache!

I checked back, and he did fake one or two other of my targets, but other finds look real to me. So is it lazy, or is it "oops I forgot?"

2.3k · January 3, 2005

As long as joe keeps creating targets that are only a block from work I have no reason to fake it.

Geez man... don't you know charity when you see it?

1.6k · January 3, 2005

I would email the other owners of locationless caches. It isn't fair to other cachers that this guy is getting bogus finds.

3.8k · January 3, 2005

Not all pic that look fake are fake .

I took this November 2003 . The flash fired on the camera and lit the gps but not the castle. It looks SO fake But I know its not

log

January 4, 2005

nobody likes a snitch.

January 4, 2005

OK....I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say.."Does it really matter?" If that person wants to claim caches he has not really done, so what! They are cheating themselves out of a caching experience for what? A little smiley face and another digit to their total number. WOO HOO. & BFD! But that's just my insignificant opinion.

Happy caching

24.7k · January 4, 2005

OK....I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say.."Does it really matter?" If that person wants to claim caches he has not really done, so what! They are cheating themselves out of a caching experience for what? A little smiley face and another digit to their total number. WOO HOO. & BFD! But that's just my insignificant opinion.

Happy caching

If it didn't punish everyone who did it right, it would be no big deal.

20.7k · January 4, 2005

..."Does it really matter?" ...

In my opinion, it does matter. There are plenty of cachers who like finding LCs. People who post false finds on these caches rob those cachers of the ability to log these items.

January 4, 2005

Follow the rules and delete his log. Pretty simple. Report him too. Fork it.

January 4, 2005

Well... I have caught another faker on my locationless cache. He may have taken the pics, but he sure didn't have the GPS in the pic as I require in the rules.

If he took a picture of the location, how could he not have found it? I understand you require a GPS pic to count, but how could this person be a cheater if he was actually on location and took a pic of the location?

2.2k · January 4, 2005

OK....I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say.."Does it really matter?" If that person wants to claim caches he has not really done, so what! They are cheating themselves out of a caching experience for what? A little smiley face and another digit to their total number. WOO HOO. & BFD! But that's just my insignificant opinion.

Happy caching

If it didn't punish everyone who did it right, it would be no big deal.

In what way are they punished?

They still have their find. Theire caching experience has in no way been deteriorated.

So someone fudged a number, except being annoyed...its hurts noone.

2.2k · January 4, 2005

Well... I have caught another faker on my locationless cache. He may have taken the pics, but he sure didn't have the GPS in the pic as I require in the rules.

If he took a picture of the location, how could he not have found it? I understand you require a GPS pic to count, but how could this person be a cheater if he was actually on location and took a pic of the location?

The GPS in the picture proves that you didnt go back and grab some old vacation photos to log your find with.

2.3k · January 4, 2005

The final decision, of course, depends on the cache owners own standards. If you are sure the cacher cheated on finding YOUR cache, then I would say it's YOUR call. You do what you feel is the appropriate thing, and stand by that decision.

January 4, 2005

The GPS in the picture proves that you didnt go back and grab some old vacation photos to log your find with.

OK, thanks for the explanation. I guess I can't fathom why someone would cheat on a cache like this. It is so easy to go to the zillions of other cache pages and just log "TFTC, TNLN." without being questioned that this route seems like a lot of work.

Anyway, I guess I just feel badly for the poor soul who actually feels they are somehow impressing people with the faked find.

What a pitiful life they must lead.

24.7k · January 4, 2005

...In what way are they punished?

They still have their find. Theire caching experience has in no way been deteriorated.

So someone fudged a number, except being annoyed...its hurts noone.

In the same way you bust your butt all day for a days pay and someone else ha their buddy clock them in at 8, then they show up at quitting time, clock out and collect the same pay as you.

It's not the same degree as the pay example, but the idea behind it is similar. If you let a slacker get away with it, you are also doing everyone who did it right a dis-service.

January 4, 2005

...In what way are they punished?

They still have their find. Theire caching experience has in no way been deteriorated.

So someone fudged a number, except being annoyed...its hurts noone.

In the same way you bust your butt all day for a days pay and someone else ha their buddy clock them in at 8, then they show up at quitting time, clock out and collect the same pay as you.

It's not the same degree as the pay example, but the idea behind it is similar. If you let a slacker get away with it, you are also doing everyone who did it right a dis-service.

I guess where we would have a fundamental difference of opinion is I don't care how many finds a person has listed regardless of whether they actually found them or not.

I also don't care about how much money a person is paid whether they work the hours, cheat the hours or are simply a celebrity or football player.

Course this is all off topic and such, but I am just saying I couldn't care less.

You do care.

Such is life.

6.4k · January 4, 2005

...In what way are they punished?

They still have their find. Theire caching experience has in no way been deteriorated.

So someone fudged a number, except being annoyed...its hurts noone.

In the same way you bust your butt all day for a days pay and someone else ha their buddy clock them in at 8, then they show up at quitting time, clock out and collect the same pay as you.

It's not the same degree as the pay example, but the idea behind it is similar. If you let a slacker get away with it, you are also doing everyone who did it right a dis-service.

I guess where we would have a fundamental difference of opinion is I don't care how many finds a person has listed regardless of whether they actually found them or not.

I also don't care about how much money a person is paid whether they work the hours, cheat the hours or are simply a celebrity or football player.

Course this is all off topic and such, but I am just saying I couldn't care less.

You do care.

Such is life.

The one difference here is, like was already mentioned, these are locationless caches, not normal caches. For the most part, once a certain waypoint is found, it's off-limits to future cachers. Someone "faking" 100 locationless finds is depriving other, legitimate cachers of logging those places.

Now, my personal opinion is they are not geocaches, but they are fun, so if I do log them, I log them as notes. That keeps my find count in line with the way *I* play the geocaching game, it allows me to play the locationless cache game as well, and most important, I don't spoil the LC game for those who *DO* happen to enjoy it. I'm not depriving people that do enjoy locationless caches of logging a sometimes limited number of locations.

Edited January 4, 2005 by Mopar

3.8k · January 4, 2005

The final decision, of course, depends on the cache owners own standards. If you are sure the cacher cheated on finding YOUR cache, then I would say it's YOUR call. You do what you feel is the appropriate thing, and stand by that decision.

And that's the heart of the matter. If you, the owner, is convinced that this cacher cheated, then you must follow through.

January 4, 2005

The one difference here is, like was already mentioned, these are locationless caches, not normal caches. For the most part, once a certain waypoint is found, it's off-limits to future cachers. Someone "faking" 100 locationless finds is depriving other, legitimate cachers of logging those places.

Now see, this is something I did not know. I haven't ever gone after a locationless cache, but those I have seen don't stipulate that they are only available to the first to find.

In the event a locationless cache is only open to the first to find then I would agree that cheating is despicable.

In other words I don't care what people are able to extract from "the man" via any means, but when people deprive other people of something via illegitimate means then I do object.

January 4, 2005

What a loser... He probably logs regular cache without visiting them too.

As has been mentioned, fake-logging a locationless somewhere deprives other legitimate cachers from logging that place.

My locationless also provides an historical service by logging all the guidepost Bells of El Camino Real. By making a fake log it's not known whether there really is a bell in the location or not. For myself as an owner, I would certainly want to know of fakes.

Parsa

Edited January 4, 2005 by Parsa

January 4, 2005

It's up to you, but I don't understand the big deal over having a GPS in the picture. IMO in most cases, solo pics with a GPS and a handit ruins the pic. I understand that it's the cache listing make it a requirement, but how about a date picture? Most cameras now can include a date for when a pic is taken so why couldn't the standards be a bit more forgiving? .

I thought the point of geocaching was to share sights to others. They came, they saw, they took a picture.

You guys just have to chilll out.

3.9k · January 4, 2005

My first reaction is to say yes, you should contact the other owners. Mopar has a good point about it t not being fair to other cachers that want to log the same location legitimately.

January 4, 2005

..."Does it really matter?" ...

In my opinion, it does matter. There are plenty of cachers who like finding LCs. People who post false finds on these caches rob those cachers of the ability to log these items.

How is anyone robbed by posting a retouched photo? If the cacher really found something it that fits the locationless cache, why shouldn't he get the credit? Just because he didn't include his GPS in the pic doesn't change the fact that he found it.

IMO as long as accurate coordinates are provided and the pic is really of the item in question that should be enough. I would expect cache owners would be happy just to have find be logged as long as the find really exists as told by the logger.

Unless the photo is a complete fake, it doesn't matter in the bigger pictures (no pun intended).

January 4, 2005

How is anyone robbed by posting a retouched photo? If the cacher really found something it that fits the locationless cache, why shouldn't he get the credit? Just because he didn't include his GPS in the pic doesn't change the fact that he found it.

Unless the photo is a complete fake, it doesn't matter in the bigger pictures (no pun intended).

I would counter this with two points.

First, there's no way of knowing the person didn't just grab a picture of (whatever) off the internet somewhere. Requiring the GPS in the shot validates the picture to a great degree. You can find snapshots of just about anyting on the web.

Second, and most importantly, the cache owner stated that it was a requirement for logging the cache. That should be enough. Regular caches sometimes have odd additional requirements too, and if you don't meet them, the owner is free to invalidate your find. Period. Right?

January 4, 2005

I would counter this with two points.

First, there's no way of knowing the person didn't just grab a picture of (whatever) off the internet somewhere. Requiring the GPS in the shot validates the picture to a great degree. You can find snapshots of just about anyting on the web.

Second, and most importantly, the cache owner stated that it was a requirement for logging the cache. That should be enough. Regular caches sometimes have odd additional requirements too, and if you don't meet them, the owner is free to invalidate your find. Period. Right?

You can make the same arguement with ANY picture that has been submitted to any virtual or locationless cache. Requiring a GPSr in a picture does very little to validate a picture for a find. Just as you can find any snapshot on the Internet of anything, anyone can also be clever enough to make a sucessful fake with a GPSR with Photoshop IF they spent enough time faking the pic.

Yeah, so the cache owner made it a requirement to log the cache. If he wants be a cache nazi, it's his choice. But to come out into the forum seeking validation to be a snitch/tattle-tail because he feels like his cache was violated, is just down right petty.

If he feels wronged, then he should just email the offending user and delete his log. It should end right there.

3.9k · January 4, 2005

What a loser... He probably logs regular cache without visiting them too.

Apparently some people do this by waiting for a cache to be archived when it goes missing, then logging a find on it dated six months earlier ("Oh wait... just remembered I found this one when we were passing through on vacation"), which of course can never be shown to be wrong from the log book.

I agree that this sort of behaviour causes a dilemma. On the one hand, you don't want to have to be a cop; on the other, nobody likes a cheat. A few years ago I might have said "leave it, if the guy's such a cretin let him have his fun", but now I think it spoils things for the people who put a lot of effort into their locationless or other finds; it also enables "physical cache only" GCers to be rude about those of us with lots of l/l finds .

So if I were the l/l owner I would confront the guy. Chances are good that if 2 or 3 owners do that, he will stop, as this kind of individual often has a high "shame factor". (I run a big corporate PC network and I'm responsible for the support team; we know who the people are who phone up and lie to us, and in general, confronting them with cast-iron proof that we know what they're up to, works better than politely saying "uh... OK... so you clicked on that mail and for the next six hours, porn clips downloaded themselves spontaneously and continuously, and you couldn't do anything to stop them... right...")

Nick (56 l/l finds and 20 couch potato virtuals too)

2.3k · January 4, 2005

I would counter this with two points.

First, there's no way of knowing the person didn't just grab a picture of (whatever) off the internet somewhere. Requiring the GPS in the shot validates the picture to a great degree. You can find snapshots of just about anyting on the web.

Second, and most importantly, the cache owner stated that it was a requirement for logging the cache. That should be enough. Regular caches sometimes have odd additional requirements too, and if you don't meet them, the owner is free to invalidate your find. Period. Right?

You can make the same arguement with ANY picture that has been submitted to any virtual or locationless cache. Requiring a GPSr in a picture does very little to validate a picture for a find. Just as you can find any snapshot on the Internet of anything, anyone can also be clever enough to make a sucessful fake with a GPSR with Photoshop IF they spent enough time faking the pic.

Yeah, so the cache owner made it a requirement to log the cache. If he wants be a cache nazi, it's his choice. But to come out into the forum seeking validation to be a snitch/tattle-tail because he feels like his cache was violated, is just down right petty.

If he feels wronged, then he should just email the offending user and delete his log. It should end right there.

As Nazgul said, it was a requirement. It's part of "playing by the rules." If there aren't rules to play by, it's not a game, and not a find in the game -- it's now an online photo album. And yes, I have deleted internet photos also. I research my targets to a pretty good degree.

Personally, i prefer the pics where people have themselves in the shot. Not only do I like to see the faces behind the name, but it's a HARD shot to fake. Only a handful of people know how to effectively use hair and backgrounds.

"cache Nazi?" "Snitch/tattle-tail?" People talk about the same crap over and over in here. I introduce a topic cache-related but not a normal discussion item, and you start name calling? :lol:

Okay, thanks so much for that opinion. :lol:

January 4, 2005

Hey, Joel! I just want to thank you again for adopting and taking real good care of my ex-Cigar Store Indian virtual I think you've done a great job ... it takes lots of effort to effectively manage a virtual.

Cheers ... BVCY Swim

2.3k · January 4, 2005

Hey, Joel! I just want to thank you again for adopting and taking real good care of my ex-Cigar Store Indian virtual I think you've done a great job ... it takes lots of effort to effectively manage a virtual.

Cheers ... BVCY Swim

Thanks, man! I try my best!

January 4, 2005

cache nazi

Cache Nazi?

NO FIND FOR YOU!

January 4, 2005

Joel, you were nice to delete the logs. If I had proof that someone was faking my cache, I would leave their log and add my own notes and photo evidence to berate and humiliate the faker

6.7k · January 4, 2005

we know who the people are who phone up and lie to us, and in general, confronting them with cast-iron proof that we know what they're up to, works better than politely saying "uh... OK... so you clicked on that mail and for the next six hours, porn clips downloaded themselves spontaneously and continuously, and you couldn't do anything to stop them... right...")

So you are saying there's something wrong with this behaviour??

2.3k · January 4, 2005

Joel, you were nice to delete the logs. If I had proof that someone was faking my cache, I would leave their log and add my own notes and photo evidence to berate and humiliate the faker

Um, not a good idea. That's been proven before by others as being a quick and effective way to get your cache permanently archived!

6.5k · January 5, 2005

Hey, Joel! I just want to thank you again for adopting and taking real good care of my ex-Cigar Store Indian virtual I think you've done a great job ... it takes lots of effort to effectively manage a virtual.

Cheers ... BVCY Swim

Thanks, man! I try my best!

The Crabapple GA based band Cigar Store Indians are playing in town this Saturday night. Can I log this LC if I go to the show and take a pic with my GPSr in it?

January 5, 2005

Really, folks, I am scared at this point. I can just see my log photos pop up here next, accused of faking it. I have taken a few log photos with my gps in the picture, and they look bad, really bad. I have taken so many pictures hoping that i will hit the nail on the head, but nothing yet. It is a new camera and i am still learning.

It's the low light pictures or those taken at dusk that don't come out right. they come out too dark, or a blaze of flash (indoors or out), and i am wondering if either i am stupid or the camera is bad. For the log photos, just the flash appears on the gps unit - so i make sure that the coordinates appear in the picture (that will show, i have really found it or been there).

Unfortunately, until the days stay lighter later i'm stuck with dusk & night pictures after work - go to school & work 6 days a week, 7th day i do laundry .

I know this is off topic, but if someone can offer any advice, i would really, really appreicate it!!! I guess we should start geocaching photography in another topic so we don't upset TPTB. here are pictures from my gallery: TruFinds gallery

Thanks!!!

2.3k · January 5, 2005

Really, folks, I am scared at this point. I can just see my log photos pop up here next, accused of faking it. I have taken a few log photos with my gps in the picture, and they look bad, really bad. I have taken so many pictures hoping that i will hit the nail on the head, but nothing yet. It is a new camera and i am still learning.
It's the low light pictures or those taken at dusk that don't come out right. they come out too dark, or a blaze of flash (indoors or out), and i am wondering if either i am stupid or the camera is bad. For the log photos, just the flash appears on the gps unit - so i make sure that the coordinates appear in the picture (that will show, i have really found it or been there).

Unfortunately, until the days stay lighter later i'm stuck with dusk & night pictures after work - go to school & work 6 days a week, 7th day i do laundry .

I know this is off topic, but if someone can offer any advice, i would really, really appreicate it!!! I guess we should start geocaching photography in another topic so we don't upset TPTB. here are pictures from my gallery: TruFinds gallery

Thanks!!!

I just looked at yours. Nope, not fake, LOL. If you saw the rest of this guy's gallery, you'd understand -- there are about three GPS pics total, and those GPS's are used/pasted over at least 30% of the locationless finds. Some are VERY obvious, others less so. But trust me... you won't have a problem!

7.4k · January 5, 2005

Really, folks, I am scared at this point.

No need to be! There's a difference between "bad" pictures and faked ones. Here are some of the pictures the guy I mentioned in my post above posted on his locationless finds. When you see them all together, you can see that they've been faked.

(FYI, as far as I know, he has deleted these photos from his logs, leaving only the versions showing no GPSr.)

2.3k · January 5, 2005

There's a difference between "bad" pictures and faked ones. Here are some of the pictures the guy I mentioned in my post above posted on his locationless finds. When you see them all together, you can see that they've been faked.

Ditto that. Very similar to what is happening on mine.

(edited to avoid any more flames)

Edited January 5, 2005 by joefrog

1.2k · January 5, 2005

Instead of deciding who is a faker and who isn't, wouldn't it be much easier if the cache owners required that the coordinates and the time be legible on the GPS screen, and that if those cannot be provided on the same screen, two different "screen shots" will be required?

7.2k · January 5, 2005

Somebody, please prove me wrong.

You're claiming these are Photoshop'ed?

January 5, 2005

(FYI, as far as I know, he has deleted these photos from his logs, leaving only the versions showing no GPSr.)

Yeah, those are bad. I wondered why all those shots with the GPS are gone and just plain pictures were in their places. At least the owner of the Merci Boxcar did not give him credit in his found by chart. I mean the Nevada Boxcar was in a shed being restored as shown by someone who really found it. That one really burned me up since there are so very few of these Boxcars. I thought that this guy seems to really get enjoy faking LCs. But the master has posted a thread devoted to his rationale a couple of years ago.

Keep the faith Frog!

Edited January 5, 2005 by cacheKidds

January 5, 2005

Instead of deciding who is a faker and who isn't, wouldn't it be much easier if the cache owners required that the coordinates and the time be legible on the GPS screen, and that if those cannot be provided on the same screen, two different "screen shots" will be required?

This in some cases is not realistic. Some circumstances, lighting conditions (or just some of us) just can't take good pictures. Just browse though a number of the pics that are currently submitted to any locationless cache and most of the coordinates are unreadable.

I got into this hobby to have some fun not to become a become a contortionist. Just today I was trying to get a pic of a old air raid siren located in a restricted area in LAX. Some of you may recall a fellow cacher being detained not too far from the area (Grand Central Station). Drivers are not allowed to stop along the road, so basically I have to take the picture while driving a car and getting my GPS in the picture... quite a feat if you are alone in a car (yeah I know I need to get help to take this picture and from a mental professional about my geocaching habits). Fortunantely most folks don't have to go though this to get a find... but you never know what people will go though to take a pic...

January 5, 2005

I would counter this with two points.

First, there's no way of knowing the person didn't just grab a picture of (whatever) off the internet somewhere. Requiring the GPS in the shot validates the picture to a great degree. You can find snapshots of just about anyting on the web.

Second, and most importantly, the cache owner stated that it was a requirement for logging the cache. That should be enough. Regular caches sometimes have odd additional requirements too, and if you don't meet them, the owner is free to invalidate your find. Period. Right?

I still don't see how anyone is "robbed" of a find. Even if the picture is taken from the Internet, as long as the coordinates are accurate for the "find" why should it matter? As long as the picture is accurate and the person submitted the correct coordinates it should be a find. How different is this from a person who is the first in finding a traditional cache no writing instrument? Did he really earn the FTF if he doesn't sign the log? Does it even count as a find?

If the WHOLE find is fictious for the locationless cache, then it can be outted by someone showing that the object in question is simply not there.

Is the point of locationless caches to get a accurate report of objects of interest or to be bound by "red tape" in following procedures in submitting a find? Cache owners have the descretion of making a judgement call on finds. So if cache owners want to stick hard and fast their "requirements" - thats fine. Just remember that this is a game where folks are suppose to have fun! This isn't a 1040 tax return we are submitting.

Try looking beyond the requirements and look at the bigger picture of the hobby.

Another Faker Busted

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