Phantom loggers

The Spindoctors · Post by **The Spindoctors** » 15 December 08 2:02 pm

They're at it again. Every northern winter this occurs - very strange.

See the last few logs on http://coord.info/GC3E

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 15 December 08 2:05 pm

Spindoc Bob wrote:They're at it again. Every northern winter this occurs - very strange.

See the last few logs on http://coord.info/GC3E

<insert fat pizza movie joke>

I'm inga and I'm hidy, we're from sweeden and we're backpackers ya!

GhostGums · Post by **GhostGums** » 15 December 08 2:15 pm

Wow the last one must be real quick. He found a cache in Sydney and in Oklahoma on the same day!

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 15 December 08 2:39 pm

GhostGums wrote:Wow the last one must be real quick. He found a cache in Sydney and in Oklahoma on the same day!

While I'm assuming it may be bogus, it is also possible for 2 reasons, didn't check the date that GC.com fills in by default, or time zones, you hit LAX before you leave Sydney.

Jardry · Post by **Jardry** » 15 December 08 5:20 pm

Another reason could be an incorrect GC Code when making the log entry!

I think it also got some recent publicity on a Podcacher podcast on the list of 100 oldest current geocaches.

Bunya · Post by **Bunya** » 15 December 08 5:27 pm

The cache size for GC3E is given as "virtual".
Perhaps they do worldwide searches for caches which have this size specification and assume they can log them!

tronador · Post by **tronador** » 15 December 08 6:41 pm

Bunya wrote:The cache size for GC3E is given as "virtual".
Perhaps they do worldwide searches for caches which have this size specification and assume they can log them!

I think you are right. Arm chair caching

Richary · Post by **Richary** » 15 December 08 9:59 pm

Like all virtuals I always take a photo to prove I have been there. Unluckily the listing for this doesn't state that as a requirement. If the owner is still around perhaps he can add that as a requirement and delete logs that aren't kosher.

It's all about the numbers (for some)

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 15 December 08 10:27 pm

richary wrote:Like all virtuals I always take a photo to prove I have been there. Unluckily the listing for this doesn't state that as a requirement. If the owner is still around perhaps he can add that as a requirement and delete logs that aren't kosher.

It's all about the numbers (for some)

I usually take pics of all caches I hit up, for personal benefit mostly, both the location if it's interesting but more likely just the cache and its contents.

traineediplomat · Post by **traineediplomat** » 16 December 08 2:05 pm

This one doesn't have any logging requirements does it?

Cool, when the time comes and I am in desperate need for a smiley I'll know where to go!

acts2youthgroup · Post by **acts2youthgroup** » 18 December 08 8:29 am

After reading the discription, I am left wondering why it is still listed as a Trad and if it is a virtual what are the requirements to log it?

Papa Bear_Left · Post by **Papa Bear_Left** » 18 December 08 11:55 am

acts2youthgroup wrote:After reading the discription, I am left wondering why it is still listed as a Trad and if it is a virtual what are the requirements to log it?

It's a problem child, that one...

One the one hand, it's obviously mis-listed as a trad, and it can't be replaced with a physical cache or changed to a virtual.
It should be archived.

One the other hand, it's historic and it'd be nice if it could stay somehow...

strong-arm · Post by **strong-arm** » 18 December 08 12:10 pm

Perhaps adding requirements to log, like a picture of a sign/landmark nearby with GPS in hand as proof. If the owner is MIA, can a reviewer make a little change like that? Or adopt it out?

Papa Bear_Left · Post by **Papa Bear_Left** » 18 December 08 1:55 pm

strong-arm wrote:Perhaps adding requirements to log, like a picture of a sign/landmark nearby with GPS in hand as proof. If the owner is MIA, can a reviewer make a little change like that? Or adopt it out?

Yes, but it can't be changed to a virtual.

Papa Bear_Left · Post by **Papa Bear_Left** » 18 December 08 4:31 pm

On the topic of those bogus virtual finds, often from the other side of the world, the cache owner has a responsibility to delete them:

(Virtual caches) The seeker must answer a question from the landmark and verify to the cache owner that he was physically at the location.

The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements.

If enough caches owners delete these armchair "cachers'" logs, they'll go back to video games and other virtual entertainment.

Geocaching Australia

Phantom loggers

Phantom loggers

Re: Phantom loggers