Bogus Logs (dog108 is logging caches without finding them)

[caughtatwork]

How do we know he's not a cacher setting up another account just to stir us up,

That's what I would call a troll and they deserve to be banned.

[forthferalz]

wow! Absolutely appalling what was the GS response? What if you had invited some newb or a local reporter along?

Groundspeak seem to fail to act for lack of evidence ... it shouldn't be too hard for them to check IP addresses and confirm that this bloke is a total stooge

Big brother records the IP address of logs?
He's a premium paying stooge so that kind of shoots the premium safety thing down.

[Zytheran]

Here's my latest reply from GS..

Dear Mr ******,

We thank you for your email, and understand that logging bogus finds can be extremely annoying to earnest geocachers, particularly in a growing community like Australia.

I have looked at this user's profile page and note that dog108 has made 51 cache finds to date. You mentioned that this user had logged over 200, so perhaps they have edited their finds since you contacted us.

We have also contacted one of the Australian Reviewers about this issue, and the Reviewer will keep an eye on this user. At present, because this user has not acted maliciously, we will take no further action. Although you may disagree, the onus is on the cache owners to delete bogus logs from their cache pages.

We hope this offers a clear explanation.
Regards,
Sandy

"At present, because this user has not acted maliciously, we will take no further action."
OMG Groundspeak FAIL..
Maybe they don't keep very good records and have no idea what is happening on their site?
Can't they see all the archived logs the users have already been deleting?
So there is nothing unusual about the number of finds on one day spread over a vast distance, and the fact that some of the caches were not available or needed other information dog108 could never have?
Hopefully whoever the local reviewer they chose it is one of the regulars and they can sort this out and save many paying members some time and effort?

[Ranger1]

Another forum that we are members of has an ISP checking feature & has stopped more than a handfull of people from creating extra accounts.

[Alansee]

From GS -

I have looked at this user's profile page and note that dog108 has made 51 cache finds to date. You mentioned that this user had logged over 200, so perhaps they have edited their finds since you contacted us.

You are kidding me! Presumably its a volunteer, BUT!

If they don't have access to all the data, they should.

[theUMP]

"At present, because this user has not acted maliciously, we will take no further action."
OMG Groundspeak FAIL..
Maybe they don't keep very good records and have no idea what is happening on their site?

Malicious to me would be putting "Needs archived" logs on multiple caches that might stop finders searching for them or even get the cache archived, or physically trashing or stealing caches or contents, or other things that would have a real, deleterious impact on cachers and cache owners. A slew of bogus finds doesn't fit too far into the "malicious" category in my reckoning; it's an annoyance. There are some unlikely circumstances where a bogus log could be a hassle, like making someone believe that the run of DNFs on a remote cache had been broken, sending them on a wild goose chase, but mostly it's just making the 'finder' look like the prat they are.

Without the hue and cry over this dingbat, what would the result have been? Someone would have had 200 undeserved smileys (there'd still be plenty left for the rest of us.) That's it. I do take forthferalz' point about the "thin end of the wedge" and this sort of thing could become a real issue if it became widespread, but there's so little reward to it that I doubt it'll happen. (Spam only continues because, hard though it is to believe, there really are idiots out there sending money to widows of Nigerian princes, buying blue pills from dodgy 'Canadian' pharmacies, and filling in bank details on amateurishly design bogus bank sites. Without that reward, spam would be just a low murmur of prank emails.)

Yeah, Sandy should've looked a bit closer at why the log number had dropped (or asked me!), but it's probably just not high on her priority list.

Don't know which local reviewer it was she's contacted, but it's not me! (Hint: with embi's formalisation of his retirement, there's only two of us it could be...)

[forthferalz]

I do take forthferalz' point about the "thin end of the wedge" and this sort of thing could become a real issue if it became widespread, but there's so little reward to it that I doubt it'll happen.

yep I believe in the stitch in time - and disturbingly it depends on what you classify as a reward. I couldn't resist playing CSI after googling the NZ troll's moniker ( there was no link and i was too lazy to go the GC site and look him up).

The verbose academic cache hides are one thing - the flikr bondage photo album is another! ( NB he shows up a few times with a gps in hand as well but so does "V for vendetta") "TreMichLan is a dastardly fellow, a fiendish intercultural bete noire, who lists his favourite pastimes as procrastination punctuated by large peaks of supreme industriousness." a blog link full of poetry ( mainly on sexual or drug themes ), 2 friends on myspace ( one is not human ) where he lists mischief as a pastime and has a female bondage avatar, NB this is just his stuff in a public space available for comment

Probably no bad thing the events fell through whether through stupidity ( which does not seem unlikely as the bogus logs don't show a great deal of intelligence imho ) or otherwise. Is GC an adults only website? If not can the site admin puleeese be more forthcoming when we need a bit of IT muscle?

PS.the professional profilers have this to say to kids "Experts who understand schoolyard bullying often misunderstand cyberbullying, thinking it is just another method of bullying. But the motives and the nature of cybercommunications, as well as the demographic and profile of a cyberbully differ from their offline counterpart."
the four types of cyberbullies http://www.stopcyberbullying.org/parent ... bully.html

[navleader]

we have a guy in NZ whose doing a bit of armchair logging mixed with a few real logs, he caches under 8 or more names, posts caches , his "friends" get FTF's, he sets up false events, people turn up, nothing there, he makes excuses, wrong time, wrong meeting place or wrong day even!
He preys on disabled caches, logging finds on them knowing theres a high possibility of the fact the cache has gone.
He caches under the names of--
tremichlan
JDSavannah
GreytownLad
Manaia
GerrytheGeocachingGiraffe
CzechKiwi
Scoop81 (effectively a sock puppet - certainly displays all the traits of the others, like FTFing caches days/weeks before publishing)
Te Reo Maori
UVT_ROM

Check out his logs, makes disturbing reading.
His real name is Trevor Michael Landers (Tremichlan)
Be warned!--delete ALL his logs!

Although I do not condone the type of activity about which concerns have been aired regarding this geocacher's alleged offences against the spirit of geocaching, I am very concerned that the vigilante approach being advocated (i.e. 'delete ALL his logs') constitutes a disturbing threat to the geocaching community as a whole. Unless one is VERY sure of facts of the 'supposed' transgressions, please be VERY cautious about deleting log entrys of suspected aliases.

I can assure you that Scoop81 is NOT an alias of tremichlan - she is in fact my daughter who was introduced to geocaching by myself and although she may be an acquaintance of tremichlan she is most definately not a 'sock puppet' in any way shape or form. I am aware that she has enjoyed many shared hours of geocaching with tremichlan and I can assure you that she has NEVER logged a cache that she didn't physically find. I would be appalled to discover that the perpetrators of this thread - who appear to be conducting a witch-hunt on tremichlan were to delete any of Scoop81's log entries in the persuit of their vendetta.

[glyn(the only one)]

How would you suggest we deal with Trev & his Ilk then?
Have deleted your daughters name off the original post in response to your response.

[Richary]

In reality - if you don't think someone has actually been to your cache you should do a check and see if they have written the name in the logbook. That should happen before you delete their online log rather than assuming every log of theirs is bogus. Part of the duties of a cache owner.

That said, having moved interstate I can no longer easily access some of my caches and not all have been adoptes as I liked placing some in remote areas. In that case if I suspect someone hasn't been there because they have made logs in vastly different areas on the same day I would place a note on the cache page asking the next finder to check the logbook for me and send a PM as to whether they had or had not been there. In my case this particular person hasn't logged any of my caches (either the ones I still own or the adopted out ones that I have on my watchlist because I still like to see when people find them).

I remember a similar discussion a few years back about some people doing bogus logs - not on a big scale of hitting everything though - and checked one of mine. In fact there were more names in the logbook than logs on the web. Some people had obviously found it then forgotten to log it online, and didn't find any the other way around.

[Rabbitto]

T...H...A...N...K......Y...O...U......F...O...R......T...H...E......C...A...C...H...W (grrrrr, damn these little keybords when you have fat fingers)

[mtbikeroz]

richary said

In reality - if you don't think someone has actually been to your cache you should do a check and see if they have written the name in the logbook. That should happen before you delete their online log rather than assuming every log of theirs is bogus. Part of the duties of a cache owner.

Ha ha - When I first got notification of dogs find on my cache (Great Aussie Icon Hunt #1 - Adelaide to Canberra), doggy boy had found 158 caches in Adelaide, then allegedly drove over to canberra, all 1100km, and still had time to find windmills and then more time to go for a walk Sth of Canberra in Namadgi Nat park to find the cache, ALL ON THE SAME DAY. No need to check on that!!!! LOG DELETED!

[theUMP]

First two dog108 caches listed for review.

First two dog108 caches archived without much of a look at them.


Let him delete the rest of the bogus logs and then we'll think about even bothering to examine them.

[rhinogeo]

First two dog108 caches listed for review.

First two dog108 caches archived without much of a look at them.


Let him delete the rest of the bogus logs and then we'll think about even bothering to examine them.

Where were they? purely for academic purposes

[winterdragon]

First two dog108 caches listed for review.

First two dog108 caches archived without much of a look at them.

That's a shame. I could have logged FTF without all the exertion of actually visiting the cache.