When Is A Find Not A Find?

September 7, 2005

I'm not sure just what happened to the cache, but it seems about a week ago that someone found the log sheet in the baggie on the ground. Rather than to look further for the cache container, they just stuck the log sheet in a cinderblock nearby and three others have found and signed the log sheet without finding the cache container. I found the log sheet and the cache container is just where it should have been.

I don't consider finding the log sheet to be finding the cache. Anyone who read the other logs would have immediately known that the was a pretty good hide; "Cleverly hidden", "very nice container and hide", "This one is VERY clever"; and there were other comments about the container being hard to open, etc. So I think anyone who read the description and logs would have known that the cache was more than a baggie with a log sheet.

So what do I do now? I would like to have the last four finders find the cache container before I let them have the find. One that I wrote to help me find the log sheet has already said he thinks this is still a find. Is there a guideline about this?

2.7k · September 7, 2005

Hrm, if it is your cache, then you can do what you want. Otherwise, I'd just shrug and go 'meh... whatever'.

Edited September 7, 2005 by New England n00b

September 7, 2005

I'm not sure just what happened to the cache, but it seems about a week ago that someone found the log sheet in the baggie on the ground. Rather than to look further for the cache container, they just stuck the log sheet in a cinderblock nearby and three others have found and signed the log sheet without finding the cache container. I found the log sheet and the cache container is just where it should have been.

I don't consider finding the log sheet to be finding the cache. Anyone who read the other logs would have immediately known that the was a pretty good hide; "Cleverly hidden", "very nice container and hide", "This one is VERY clever"; and there were other comments about the container being hard to open, etc. So I think anyone who read the description and logs would have known that the cache was more than a baggie with a log sheet.

So what do I do now? I would like to have the last four finders find the cache container before I let them have the find. One that I wrote to help me find the log sheet has already said he thinks this is still a find. Is there a guideline about this?

I don't know. Logs or no, if all I found was a log and no container I'd assume it was muggled, leave a note but not claim a find. As for counting the finds following the cinderblock replacement, how would they know that wasn't the right container? Besides, some of us don't read the logs bn/c they sometimes give away too much and prefer the challenge of going in more or less blind.

So my thought is the person who "replaced" your container gets no find. The others should stand IMO.

2.1k · September 7, 2005

I feel that the finders should not be punished for the cache-log being in the wrong place by losing their find...they came to the coordinates, found what they assumed was the cache, signed the log, and went on their way.

That being said, it's your cache, do what you feel is right.

nfa-jamie

1.8k · September 7, 2005

Even if it was my own cache, I'd still shrug and and go 'meh... whatever'

I don't see how this situation is any different from the cache being moved to a different spot, or not being concealed well, or anything else that can make a clever hide into an easy find. I'd just let the finds stand and move on.

September 7, 2005

To respond to the idea that they found a "container". Since when is a torn baggie a "container"? I think anyone should realize that a baggie, even stuffed into a cinderblock, is not a proper cache.

If they had taken a shortcut to finding the container, then fine, but they didn't find the container. To my thinking this is the same as finding a decoy.

September 7, 2005

To respond to the idea that they found a "container". Since when is a torn baggie a "container"? I think anyone should realize that a baggie, even stuffed into a cinderblock, is not a proper cache.

If they had taken a shortcut to finding the container, then fine, but they didn't find the container. To my thinking this is the same as finding a decoy.

I think stuffing a log in a cinder block might be a good way to throw some people off. I admit it wasn't your intended container, but still, I can see how some might have seen it as a clever hide. :lol:

Have you seen the cool cache containers thread? There's lots of stuff there poeple wouldn't think of checking. Why not a cinder block?

Edited September 7, 2005 by wandererrob

9.4k · September 7, 2005

To respond to the idea that they found a "container". Since when is a torn baggie a "container"? I think anyone should realize that a baggie, even stuffed into a cinderblock, is not a proper cache.

If they had taken a shortcut to finding the container, then fine, but they didn't find the container. To my thinking this is the same as finding a decoy.

Sometimes containers go missing, but the log remains behind. I see nothing wrong with claiming a find if they signed the logsheet.

September 7, 2005

Relax, let 'em have their find. I would be a little ticked if my find was deleted and I was told to go seek it out again. I certainly would not return. :lol:

22k · September 7, 2005

I personally would change my find to a DNF, go back, find the cache (hopefully), sign the logbook again and log a Found, but that's just me.

Edit: Nah, I take that all back. I wouldn't have logged a found for just a logbook in baggie without confirming the baggie was the container.

The most I would do is just post a note that the logbook is now back in the container if any of the previous finders would now like to go back and find the cache itself.

Edited September 7, 2005 by BlueDeuce

2.3k · September 7, 2005

<snip> To respond to the idea that they found a "container". Since when is a torn baggie a "container"? I think anyone should realize that a baggie, even stuffed into a cinderblock, is not a proper cache. <snip>

Ive found that, and worse, as a 'container' for a 'cache'. :lol:

September 7, 2005

It is a find.

UNLESS the owner specifically said you must find the container to log a find.

If you sign the logbook. It's a find, unless the OWNER says otherwise. I think they will dictate the "found" issue.

38.2k · September 7, 2005

To respond to the idea that they found a "container". Since when is a torn baggie a "container"?

You'll be surprised. I've heard of a number of caches that were nothing more than a sheet of paper in a Ziploc.

22k · September 7, 2005

It is a find.

UNLESS the owner specifically said you must find the container to log a find.

If you sign the logbook. It's a find, unless the OWNER says otherwise. I think they will dictate the "found" issue.

You mean BEFORE they found it?

Should I note on my caches that you can only claim a find if you find the cache and sign the logbook? :lol:

1.4k · September 7, 2005

I would let them have the find. They missed out on a cool container, so it's their loss. :lol:

I found a dislocated container at a semi-evil multi cache, e-mailed the owner, got permission to log the find, and went back to find it at its proper location anyway. Quite satisfying and worth the second trip.

If those finders didn't bother to e-mail the owner of their concerns, then there's not much you can do for their not reading the description or not having good "Geosense" to figure out that something wasn't quite right.

September 7, 2005

It is a find.

UNLESS the owner specifically said you must find the container to log a find.

If you sign the logbook. It's a find, unless the OWNER says otherwise. I think they will dictate the "found" issue.

You mean BEFORE they found it?

Should I note on my caches that you can only claim a find if you find the cache and sign the logbook?

No, but if the cache owner didn't say anything on the page about hiding the log and the container separately and you must find both to log, then if I just found the log book in a baggy I'd think it may have been muggled or something and the logbook was left.

September 7, 2005

I feel that the finders should not be punished for the cache-log being in the wrong place by losing their find...they came to the coordinates, found what they assumed was the cache, signed the log, and went on their way.

That being said, it's your cache, do what you feel is right.

nfa-jamie

I have to agree with Jamie. It is not their fault the log was lying on the ground and I would not punish them for it. But, it is your cache, and if you want to demand they find the container for a find you can.

This actually happened to me a couple weeks ago on Jim Morrison gravesite in Chicago. Went to where I thought the final cache must be, but could not find it. Amazingly, my wife found the log just lying there on the ground. No plastic baggie or anything. I got the impression from past logs that the container was missing. In any case, I signed the log and stuffed it back where I thought the cache had originally been, came home and logged it as found. Two cachers since say they have found the container. I have not changed my log, but if the owner wants I will change it to a DNF and go back to look again. (I will look again anyways the next time I am there. I want to know where the darned thing was!)

September 7, 2005

Unless you want to p.o. a whole lot of people, forget it. If I were you I'd also delete the second note you posted suggesting that some people go back and redo your cache. The cachers that found the log sheet and the container (ziplock bag) did it in good faith and aren't at fault.

Just post a note that you have done cache maintainence and everything is now as it should be. Don't mention that a few cachers found it in what you considered the wrong place. Put this behind you, it is the regal thing to do. :lol:

7.3k · September 7, 2005

Just post a note that you have done cache maintainence and everything is now as it should be. Don't mention that a few cachers found it in what you considered the wrong place. Put this behind you, it is the regal thing to do

exactly right

1.1k · September 7, 2005

To respond to the idea that they found a "container". Since when is a torn baggie a "container"? I think anyone should realize that a baggie, even stuffed into a cinderblock, is not a proper cache.

If they had taken a shortcut to finding the container, then fine, but they didn't find the container. To my thinking this is the same as finding a decoy.

I have seen caches in BAGGIES where the container was I can't say all the mctoys were in the baggie. It sounds like maybe someone found the cache and just dropped the bag on the ground or some lazy cacher did it or it was who know. But with todays gas prices and all I would not make folks come back to find a stupid container. It is just a game.

cheers

1.8k · September 7, 2005

To respond to the idea that they found a "container". Since when is a torn baggie a "container"?

You'll be surprised. I've heard of a number of caches that were nothing more than a sheet of paper in a Ziploc.

Yep. I've seen caches that were literally just a paper in a baggy (a couple of 'em were in fact quite cleverly hidden too), or in one case, a sheet of waterproof paper on its own. If I found a log sheet in a baggy, especially if it was tucked into a cinderblock, I might very well just assume that's the way it was supposed to be.

6.5k · September 7, 2005

When Is A Find Not A Find?, Found log without container

When the cache owner says its not.

So long as they apply the rules equally (and are upfront about any uncommon requirements on the page) it's fine.

If this were my cache I'd replace/fix/change whatever so its back to orginal condition, and just note that you fixed it and its back to standard.

Something strange happened for the log to get seperated from the container. Maybe a cacher put it back wrong, or was lazy and didn't put it back, maybe an animal had its way with the cache, maybe a muggle messed with it. Theres really no way for you to know what happened. I also don't see how seekers could have been certain that the cache had been tampered with, without contacting the owner or conferring with a previous finder. Having said that, I still think it within your power to delete logs that didn't find to whatever you consider a find (of course you may get some nasty messages for doing so because others won't agree).

September 8, 2005

You could post a note saying that what the last three cachers found wasn't the cache and shame them into changing their entry.

38.2k · September 8, 2005

If it were my cache I'd let it slide. They found what they thought was the cache and signed the logbook. The latter is what most people consider to be a find. Its not like they were trying to pull a fast one. They made a good faith effort. It probably isn't worth the ill will it would generate to delete the logs.

10.1k · September 8, 2005

Bit of a sticky wicket problem for me here. "Signed log" seems to be the normal requirement. Had a few people say "Found cache, but didn't sign log. Didn't like people in the neighborhood." That didn't work for me. Ranked right up there with "Found Webcam, but no one was at home to take my picture." In questionable circumstances, requesting permission sould seem to me to be the way to go.

I can think of three 'iffy' logs that I've logged. For one, the container had been missing for quite a while, and we searched for it three times. I received permission to log it. Another, we found the container strewn across the landscape. No log. Signed a paper, put it in the container, and replaced it where it should have been hiden. (That one is archived.) And, just recently, a cache that hadn't been found in six months. Container strewn across the landscape, and unusable. (Many teeth-mark holes in it.) Found the pen, geocaching statement, and cover to the cache. Did not find log. Removed geotrash. Requested and received permission to log this one. Sorry that I was not able to search for the great hide on this one. :lol: (And hope that I did the right thing removing what I saw to be geotrash.)

"Signed log" is generally perceived to equal smiley. It may not be what you intended, and you can always (and should) rectify the problem. But, dang, they did sign the log!

September 8, 2005

I've seen at least three caches that were nothing more than logbooks in plastic baggies stuffed somewhere. If logs referred to a 'clever container' and all I found was a logbook in a baggie, I'd think that either the poster of that log was being sarcastic or truly thought the lack of a container was a clever container. I wouldn't assume that the log had been taken out of the container, because then it shouldn't be in the baggie.

September 8, 2005

Well, I have fixed the cache and noted on the cache page that the last four cachers did not actually find the cache suggesting that they might want to return to actually find it.

I'm over the discussion of whether a baggie is a cache or not. Walking up to a location and finding a baggie on the ground is not much of a find regardless of what others have done for their caches. In this case finding the container is the whole cache. It is a good cammo job and I took pride in making it. So of course I am disappointed that a cacher would not want to face the challenge of finding it.

I am happy with my cache at this point and it is not important to me whether the cachers return to find the cache or not. I'm not deleting any logs.

September 11, 2005

Well, you found the cache log, which, even if there was a cache container there, you don't sign the container you sign the logsheet.

September 14, 2005

I just had this happen to me, I found some of the contents scattered about the ground and the log sheet in a bush. It was obviously muggled, the description said it was in a tupperware container. I collected everything I could find and took it home with me. I contacted the owner telling him what I found and that I had the contents and the log I also logged it as a find since I had signed the log. The owner decided to archive the cache and opted not to replace it since it was a growing housing development. The same weekend I found where one had ben, a peice of velcro under a bench, but no cache no log. I handled that as a note. I could not log it as a find because there was no log, but I did indeed find the spot where it should have ben. It seems that the popular opinion is count it only if you find it and sign the log.

22k · September 14, 2005

Recently did a DNF on the first leg of a multi, the next guy couldn't find it either, so the owner simply posted the coords for the second leg until he could fix it.

A week later another cacher finds the first leg and replaces it from where it fell.

The good thing is now I don't have to wait for the owner so I can go try again for the first leg and get the coords for the second.

10.1k · September 14, 2005

When is a find not a find?!? This was made apparent to me recently.

This might not have been the kindliest of logs, but all of it is true:

"Finally found stage 3. Rather like looking for a needle in a haystack with the coordinates more than 70' off (more on that later!) Fortunately the container has a distinctive thunk, when hit with a stick!

We had some disagreement on Stage 4: whether to follow the goupus or the cache page (which turned out to be a bit misleading). XXXX found this stage fairly easily, despite the coordinates.

I found stage 5 easily.

Then we came to the final stage. Harrumph. We managed to ford the stream fairly easily. Searched where the coordinates suggested, to no avail. Searched the obvious places to no avail. Widened the search parameters. Wow!!! I found it! Only 170 feet off! This is fun?!?

This was definitely a tough cache, but mostly because of the coordinates, and the needle-in-the-haystack hides.

Unusual collection of things to find in a park. "

Not a kind log, but a truthful one, and it's a good warning for others who seek this cache.

The log was deleted with no explanation. I relogged with 'Found it'. We did find the cache. We signed the log. We did not give away any hints.

Go figure. Some people have no sense of humor, or cannot take any criticism. Oh, well.

September 14, 2005

So it is a find if: 1)you find the container and 2)you find the log. Does it matter that the last finder was an animal that liked yogurt?

2.1k · September 14, 2005

Well, I have fixed the cache and noted on the cache page that the last four cachers did not actually find the cache suggesting that they might want to return to actually find it.

I'm over the discussion of whether a baggie is a cache or not. Walking up to a location and finding a baggie on the ground is not much of a find regardless of what others have done for their caches...

I like to ponder things a bit further before I react to marginal finds. Some good questions to ask here might be:

Is the game supposed to be fun?

Am I going to bum someone out unnecessarily?

Your cache appears to have offered a positive experience for 5 cachers even though they didn't find the actual container. Your cache developed a problem. You got notified of the problem by the first person that found the logbook out of the container and you fixed the problem in a timely manner. Everything was back in balance in short order.

So my question is, why try to make people feel bad about it?

September 14, 2005

I just had this happen to me, I found some of the contents scattered about the ground and the log sheet in a bush. It was obviously muggled, the description said it was in a tupperware container. I collected everything I could find and took it home with me. I contacted the owner telling him what I found and that I had the contents and the log I also logged it as a find since I had signed the log.

On the other hand, in a similar situation, we had found the container, stash sheet and several bits of burned plastic strewn around the cache site (and the actual cache site, according to the owner), but no log. We did assume that a pad of burned paper was the log... We also contacted the owner to let them know it had been muggled, but claimed it as a DNF because we did not find and sign the log.

Others in our area have found caches in a similar state and claimed it as a find. Are they wrong to do so? I don't know, but for us signing the log=found.

MaisOui

:0)

6.5k · September 14, 2005

Meh, I'd go on with life, replace the cache, and unwad my panties-it seems they are a size too tight. :laughing:

September 14, 2005

Would it be considered good ediqute to place a temporary log untill, the owner can replace an offical log. What is considered a log? (I see a new thread coming on somehow) If the cache is still there. Early on I found a muggled cache the container was ther but no log. I added some swag to it and a peice of paper as a temporary log untill the owner could get to it. I also rehid it in the most likely spot I could think of. I the owner appreciated this as did the ywo others who found it before he could get to it. I veiw situations like this as If it was my cache what would I want them to do. Basicly i see it as if there is no cache ( the actual container) gather what you can and offer it to the owner, If there is an empty cache do what you can to get it back up. Am I wrong with this idea?

22k · September 14, 2005

Would it be considered good ediqute to place a temporary log untill, the owner can replace an offical log. What is considered a log? (I see a new thread coming on somehow) If the cache is still there. Early on I found a muggled cache the container was ther but no log. I added some swag to it and a peice of paper as a temporary log untill the owner could get to it. I also rehid it in the most likely spot I could think of. I the owner appreciated this as did the ywo others who found it before he could get to it. I veiw situations like this as If it was my cache what would I want them to do. Basicly i see it as if there is no cache ( the actual container) gather what you can and offer it to the owner, If there is an empty cache do what you can to get it back up. Am I wrong with this idea?

No, you're not wrong. I've done plently of cache maintenance including replacing the logbook (like when it's completely waterlogged).

If the cache is missing however, I don't throw a logbook in the hole and claim it as a find.

Edited September 14, 2005 by BlueDeuce

2.1k · September 14, 2005

On the other hand, in a similar situation, we had found the container, stash sheet and several bits of burned plastic strewn around the cache site (and the actual cache site, according to the owner), but no log. We did assume that a pad of burned paper was the log... We also contacted the owner to let them know it had been muggled, but claimed it as a DNF because we did not find and sign the log.

Others in our area have found caches in a similar state and claimed it as a find. Are they wrong to do so? I don't know, but for us signing the log=found.

MaisOui

:0)

This topic, like so many others, has new people asking old questions. Typically this triggers the "old" people to jump in with opposing ideas about the subject. But the new people do deserve to hear the concepts.

- - -

From my experience (rather than from my entrenched position) I log a cache as a find anytime I find either the container OR the logbook, and in some instances where neither could be found I placed a new container and logbook and logged a find. I have not read any arguments in the forums that convince me this policy is in error and I do consider the merits of those opposing arguments.

Significantly, I have never had any cache owner tell me I should not log a find for those situations. The opposite is often true - cache owner is happy to receive notice that there is a problem and often says thanks for whatever bit of maintenance we did to temporarily improve the condition. Just as often though there is no response from the owner.

For our caches I use the same policy and would extend it for finding a significant amount of cache contents at the site if both the log and container were missing with some exceptions. If the container is actually in its place and they don't find it I usually will request the find be changed to a dnf or note.

I prefer to keep the game fun as opposed to taking a hard-line position on what constitutes a find.

22k · September 14, 2005

It's all fine and dandy if people want to claim finds for finding a logbook and not the container, it doesn't take anything away from me. But I do want the new people to also know that some owners will require you to find the cache in it's intended position and the owner has every right to do so. There's no 'logging rights' on the finders part and they shouldn't be surprised when they come across one of these hardliners.

When Is A Find Not A Find?

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

Join the conversation