Falsely Posting A Find

[+Darsantre]

I'd like your advice on how to respond to this problem.

 

I have a microcache hidden in a park and to make certain that the geocacher has really found it, there is a question inside the cache for which the cacher must email me the answer. That way I have verification that they really found the cache.

 

Well today I had a geocacher with 30 finds log a find for my cache. In the log, the cacher noted that the cache must be missing as he/she couldn't retrieve it. And I never received an answer to the question in the cache. On this same day, another geocacher with 20 finds posted a find for my microcache and I also received an email with the answer to the question.

 

So how should I respond to the cacher who posted a find but never actually found the cache?

 

I appreciate your responses.

[+sept1c_tank]

My response would be, no response.

[darwinmay]

Delete the log. If they don't find the cache and (in this case) send the answer, it is NOT a find.

[+Mopar]

Email them and ask them to change the log to a DNF since they Did Not Find the cache.

[+KKTH3]

Three answers... 3 different responses. Well, I guess 4 responses but mine is on a completely new tangent.

[+Jamie Z]

I have a microcache hidden in a park and to make certain that the geocacher has really found it, there is a question inside the cache for which the cacher must email me the answer.

I would like to address this part about answering the question.

 

Having additional logging requirements beyond signing the log is pointless. The proof is signing the log.

 

If someone didn't sign the log, yet claimed a find for your cache (which you say this person admits to) then I would go to Mopar's advice. Ask the person to change the log from a find.

 

Then, if the person fails to change the log, and you know they didn't sign the book, follow BlueNinja's advice and delete it.

 

Please don't delete the log without giving the person a chance to correct the log. That, like extra logging requirements, is counterproductive.

 

Jamie

[+briansnat]

So how should I respond to the cacher who posted a find but never actually found the cache?

 

I would ask him to change his log to a DNF. If he doesn't then I'd probably delete it.

[+SeventhSon]

If the log looks like it might have been a mistake ...

 

"Hey. I see you logged a find on my cache GC**** but you say you didn't find the cache. Did you mean to log a DNF?

 

Happy Caching"

 

If the log says they're logging a find anyway ...

 

"Hey. I see you logged a find on my cache GC**** but you say you didn't find the cache. I'm not really sure why someone would log a find when they didn't actually find the cache, but if your find count means so much to you that you are willing to accept credit for a cache you didn't find, the world won't end tomorrow.

 

Happy Logging"

 

There really isn't a lot of proof that someone found a cache. Code words can be shared with friends, friends can sign another name in the log to help a friend's find count. It's all in how much you're willing to worry about it.

[+Darsantre]

I have a microcache hidden in a park and to make certain that the geocacher has really found it, there is a question inside the cache for which the cacher must email me the answer.

I would like to address this part about answering the question.

 

Having additional logging requirements beyond signing the log is pointless. The proof is signing the log.

 

Please don't delete the log without giving the person a chance to correct the log. That, like extra logging requirements, is counterproductive.

 

Jamie

Jamie, thank you for your comments. Though I am new to posting on the forums, I'm not new to geocaching. I do have some ideas how to approach things. I just wanted to gleen ideas from others how they would approach this issue. I wasn't looking for unpetitioned comments regarding my logging requirements. Nor do I need to be told not to simply delete a log; I am aware of caching ettiquette. However, so that you will understand without hastening to judge next time, let me explain why there is an additional, yet meaningful, logging requirement:

 

I live in Istanbul Turkey where most of the geocachers who find my microcache in the park are geocaching tourists. The microcache is placed in the vicinity of the stature of a famous Turk. When creating this cache, I thought to myself, "Oh, a great hiding spot! And, people could learn something about this famous Turk if I placed a question about him in the cache that they had to find the answer to!" So to make their visit even more meaningful, they get to find a microcache in which they learn a bit more about the people they are visiting. That's why part of the cache is to answer a question that is related to where the cache is placed. It's not merely to make certain that they have actually found the log. Though today is a good example: someone merely finds the statue and then claims a find for the cache even though they didn't really retrieve it. They didn't learn something new, so I know they didn't really find the cache.

 

Therefore, I disagree with your statement that "Having additional logging requirements beyond signing the log is pointless." It's not pointless, it's to help geocaching tourists learn something new. And isn't that one of the reasons we create geocaches? For others to learn about, see, or experience something new? All the logs and emails from the cachers who found this cache have been positive.

[+IV_Warrior]

Send the polite e-mail asking if he meant to log a DNF. I've done it myself, and caught it right after hitting "Submit" and changed it. Still, the e-mail going out shows it as a find log. (So check the cache page and make sure the person didn't already change it themself, if you haven't yet)

 

Then, if they don't, DELETE IT.

[+Jamie Z]

Thanks for your condescending response after soliciting opinions.

 

If you want people to learn something about the area, that's fantastic. Make your cache a multi where the interesting information is necessary to find the final location. Additional logging requirements after someone has found the cache and signed the log will not find many fans. What do you do, for example, if someone signs the log, but missed the question?

 

Jamie

[+IV_Warrior]

However, so that you will understand without hastening to judge next time, let me explain why there is an additional, yet meaningful, logging requirement:

 

I live in Istanbul Turkey where most of the geocachers who find my microcache in the park are geocaching tourists. The microcache is placed in the vicinity of the stature of a famous Turk. When creating this cache, I thought to myself, "Oh, a great hiding spot! And, people could learn something about this famous Turk if I placed a question about him in the cache that they had to find the answer to!"

 

Therefore, I disagree with your statement that "Having additional logging requirements beyond signing the log is pointless." It's not pointless, it's to help geocaching tourists learn something new.

No, actually, it's still a pointless PITA. Nobody is learning anything that didn't already want to. People are just quickly scanning for the answer they need, scribbling it down to e-mail it to you later, and promptly forgetting about it.

[+Darsantre]

Thanks for your condescending response after soliciting opinions.

Jamie

You're welcome. I guess I'm guilty of responding in kind to your initial condescending opinion.

 

Goodness gracious people! I merely asked for your opinion on how to deal with a cheating log! I didn't ask for a full-scale critique of my cache. You don't like it, don't come to Turkey and look for it!

[+Alan2]

I wouldn't put the question in the container. People will miss it. It would be unfair to penalize them because your procedure is not usually done.

 

Try an offset cache like this instead. cache That way the person has to investigate the statue or whatever it is you want them to learn about so they can determine the coordinates of the actual cache location.

[+Darsantre]

Thank you everyone for your ideas on how to deal with a falsely posted find. I sent an email to the geocacher before I ever posed this question on this forum. My response was something along the following lines:

 

Thank you for looking for my cache in XXXXX Park. I'm sorry to read that you were unable to find the cache though I was glad to read that you enjoyed your visit to Istanbul.

 

Since it seems that another cacher found this cache after you, perhaps your log should be a "NO FIND" or a "NOTE" rather than a "FIND." What time were you looking for this cache? If it was before 3:30pm when the other cacher found it, then your log should really be a "NO FIND" as you didn't actually retrieve the cache. If you were looking after 3:30pm, then why don't you change your log to a "NOTE" while I check on the cache. If it's not there, the "NOTE" log will stand. If I do find that it's intact and retrievable, your log should really be a "NO FIND." I think you know that you log finds only for caches that you actually retrieve. I'll give you two weeks after I check on the cache and email you its status to update your log more accurately. If you haven't done so in two weeks, your log will be deleted. You can always repost a more accurate log later.

 

I'm locking this thread as I've gotten enough responses to compare to my actual course of action regarding this issue.