When The Cache Appears To Be Missing...

[+Criminal]

You go to the cache location and cannot find the cache

 

There are a few cases where the cacher simply drops a new (usually a micro) at the location and then logs the cache as “found”. That takes some nerve. First, you are assuming that the cache is missing, not that it was hidden too well for you. Second, it hijacks the owner’s cache, if the cache is missing it’s their prerogative to either replace it or archive it.

 

Is this a widespread problem? I notice that in the the Found it = Didn’t find it thread this seems to come up often.

[+treasure_hunter]

Hmmm. I've never heard of that being done w/o the owners permission. Its something to think about.

[+The Leprechauns]

Having a spare cache along because of reported DNF's, and replacing it WITH the owner's prior consent if you can't find it -- fine. I've done that, and seen others do it when on a group hunt.

 

Having a spare cache along and replacing it WITH the owner's consent after using the cellphone as a lifeline to the owner when you can't find it -- fine. I've been along on cache hunts when others have done that.

 

Just hiding one because you cannot find the original cache, but with no communication with the owner -- I wouldn't ever do that.

[+briansnat]

It happens often enough. I've heard of as many of 3 of these replacement caches at one cache site . What gets me is how these people log a 'found it' after placing their own cache. They didn't find squat, they flippin' put it there.

 

It wouldn't bother me as much if I thought people were doing it out of a misguided sense of altruism, but I think the real motivation in many cases is another smiley face.

[+wimseyguy]

Ditto Lep's post plus one.

I have been on a group cache hunt where we found both containers on two seperate occasions. We found out later on that one of the duplicates had been placed by the owner; he couldn't find his own cache!

[+Wegge]

You go to the cache location and cannot find the cache

I've done it once. I did not find the cache at its location, neither with the hint, which was a dead giveaway. However I did find parts of the cache contents, including the log some 40 feet away. I took the sorry remains with me, dried out the logbook and sent a mail to the cache owner asking for an address to post the salvage to. I never got an answer, but I did in fact have the nerve to log the cache as a find. After that I posted a note for the cache to be marked as unavailable, which it still is.

 

I know! I did not find the cache where it was supposed to be, but I have the signed log in my possesion, if anyone wants to challenge me to whether or not I found it.

[+DavidMac]

Having a spare cache along and replacing it WITH the owner's consent after using the cellphone as a lifeline to the owner when you can't find it -- fine.  I've been along on cache hunts when others have done that.

I've seen this done before, and IMHO it is only acceptable to "replace" a cache if the owner verifies (over the phone) that it is missing/misplaced or if the locations is obvious (say, if you find a cache-shaped patch of yellowed grass at the base of the multi-forked tree described in the hint and see tattered pieces of the logbook laying on the ground in the vicinity). In other cases, if you can't find it because there are many places to look, just log your DNF and move on.

 

I was once on a cache run with the owner of one cache (it was a 1/1, too), and when we located the container, the owner remarked that it had been replaced in the wrong spot. When he went to hide it in the "correct" place he found his original container in the original spot! What was aggrivating was that the finder never mentioned that he had replaced the cache, but had just slapped down a new one and moved on after aparently only searching for a few seconds. We later figured out that the same person had done this at more than one cache, rather than take a few minutes to look around.

Edited November 14, 2005 by DavidMac

[+Renegade Knight]

So far not in my back yard. People here seem content to assume your cache is missing and tell you to get off your butt and verify it's there before they look again. I tell them to log a DNF first.

[+Corp Of Discovery]

I've replaced 2 caches when I've been out. 1- found cache but container was not doing so well. 2- same as above but cache owner was with. I still feel better about #2, but at least we did find the container on #1 first. If we didn't find it I never would have put one there.

 

I have seen it quite often (too often as a matter of fact) and call them 'throw downs' (sort of like what unethical police have been rumored to do). There was one that another cacher and I were going for that was the oldest in a state, I logged a DNF, the other cacher with me logged an SBA. Some other cachers there the same day dropped one and then logged it.....

[+Isonzo Karst]

Yes, I've seen this. I was with a couple hunting a moderately difficult micro (that I had already found) when they found a film can in the most obvious spot. I was surprised, to say the least. I told them that wasn't the original hide and they hunted further. Who knows when the film can was placed. We took it with us. This was an urban micro in a parking lot, I guess folks expected it to be easy, in spite of its 2.5 terrain and 3 difficulty rating.

My husband and I also found 2 hide a keys at another urban location - according to the cache owner, neither was his original hide. He kindly let our find stand, but got out and carried away those extraneous hide-a-keys. My intent was to return and find the original, but I confess I never have.

[+Kit Fox]

I usually carry extra caches with me, in case I find a unique location needing a cache. On one cache GC55F We discovered the end caps, but not the actual PVC cache tube. I decided to replace the cache with a new Decon Container., As we were leaving, we found the actual cache tube.

 

Do I feel bad about replacing this cache? Absolutely not. Do I replace other cacher's "1/1"micros? Absolutely not.

[+Jamie Z]

The only time I've known this to happen is on a micro I adopted which was confirmed missing. I posted a note to the cache page that I would replace the container soon.

 

Meanwhile, another cacher went out there and hid a micro nearby in another hiding place and claimed that this was a better spot for the cache. He did not log it as a find, but posted a note giving the new coordinates.

 

I asked him to remove the extra container, which he did.

 

Jamie

[+huskerrich2000]

had it happen to me once, found a micro right where I expected it to be,about two days later was contacted, not by the cache owner, but a senior cacher in the area at the request of the cache owner. After a long thought of ethics, I unlogged my find because I didn't find the intended cache, no idea how that micro got there though

huskerrich

[+fizzymagic]

Having a spare cache along and replacing it WITH the owner's consent after using the cellphone as a lifeline to the owner when you can't find it -- fine.  I've been along on cache hunts when others have done that.

Not fine, IMO. Several problems with it:

• The cache may still be there. In fact, it often is. Caches move.
  
• The new cache may not be hidden as the original hider intended.
  
• The owner may not want to grant the find, but is pressured into it over the phone by the seeker. I have witnessed this myself.
  
• The hider who is claiming a find did not, in fact, find the cache, so why are they claiming a find?
  

At the very least, the new hider should agree to delete their find if a later cacher locates the original container.

 

I myself have found at least 5 original containers that were supposedly "missing" and replaced in this manner. It probably goes without saying that the "finders" who counted a find and replaced the cache did not delete their finds, though.

Edited November 14, 2005 by fizzymagic

[+Ed & Julie]

It happened to me recently.

 

Two cachers looked for a cache of mine, didn't find it, and "replaced" the cache and logged a find.

 

I emailed them, and asked them to change their logs to "notes" )since they didn't not find the cache) until I could confirm the cache was missing...they did and it was.

 

The replacement cache went missing a week or 2 later...darn muggles!

 

Ed

[+Yamahammer]

The owner should be responsible for their own cache, not us. If they move out of the area, they should give it up to adoption or archieve the cache after picking it up. If the owner isn't maintaining the cache and it's missing, it should be archieved with the logging system already in place. Once it is archieved, go ahead and place your cache in it's place. ... The perfect world.

 

To replace the cache just to get your smiles on, why even bother throwing one out there? Just log it as a Find.

 

If the owner gives you permission to replace the cache, they should go ahead and let you adopt it. You're the cacher maintaining it.

 

Just MHO.

 

[+briansnat]

You go to the cache location and cannot find the cache

I've done it once. I did not find the cache at its location, neither with the hint, which was a dead giveaway. However I did find parts of the cache contents, including the log some 40 feet away. I took the sorry remains with me, dried out the logbook and sent a mail to the cache owner asking for an address to post the salvage to. I never got an answer, but I did in fact have the nerve to log the cache as a find. After that I posted a note for the cache to be marked as unavailable, which it still is.

 

I know! I did not find the cache where it was supposed to be, but I have the signed log in my possesion, if anyone wants to challenge me to whether or not I found it.

I don't think your situation is what Criminal was referring to.

 

He's not referring to replacing a leaky container or gathering up the scattered contents and fixing the cache up. His beef is with people who can't find a cache, assume its missing and toss in their own "throw down" cache, then logging it as a find.

 

Its not only cheesy, its can cause a good deal of confusion.

Edited November 15, 2005 by briansnat

[+Sagefox]

There are a few cases where the cacher simply drops a new (usually a micro) at the location...

 

I've done that in a few instances along the I-5 corridor and elsewhere. I was confident (and correct) in my determination that the caches were, in fact, missing and that I found the exact spot. Owners either noted appreciation or did not respond. Anyone right behind me got to find rather than not find a cache.

 

...and then logs the cache as “found”.  That takes some nerve. 

 

No it doesn't. It's easy. Some of us feel that a container replacement is worth a find. But being lazy and placing a micro JUST to log a find is NOT what I'm talking about.

 

The decision to log a find or not is always situation oriented - sometimes the situation warrants a find, sometimes it might not. And sometimes a micro replacing a larger container is appropriate.

 

...Second, it hijacks the owner’s cache, if the cache is missing it’s their prerogative to either replace it or archive it.

 

It does nothing of the sort! This might be the essence of this often posted topic. The owner had to go there anyway - this fact should not be forgotten (but usually is) when passing judgment on someone else who decides to replace a container. The cache owner needs to verify personally that it is missing or have someone who knows where the cache is do it. At that time they have the option of keeping the replacement or bringing along another container. It is absolutely no extra work for the owner and they get to keep the replacement if it is worth keeping.

 

Is this a widespread problem?

 

How can someone's good intention, in what people like to call the spirit of geocaching be considered a problem? (The owner had to go visit the cache anyway.) I have not found any negative comments at any cache where I've seen this happen. Most people are happy to have some sort of container there to find. Often the owner does not go out to replace the container.

[+DanOCan]

There are a few cases where the cacher simply drops a new (usually a micro) at the location and then logs the cache as “found”. That takes some nerve.

You're not kidding that it takes nerve.

 

It saddens me to think there are people out there who are that desperate to log a find that they resort to such a thing.

[+Criminal]

There are a few cases where the cacher simply drops a new (usually a micro) at the location...

 

I've done that in a few instances along the I-5 corridor and elsewhere. I was confident (and correct) in my determination that the caches were, in fact, missing and that I found the exact spot. Owners either noted appreciation or did not respond. Anyone right behind me got to find rather than not find a cache.

 

...and then logs the cache as “found”.  That takes some nerve. 

 

No it doesn't. It's easy. Some of us feel that a container replacement is worth a find. But being lazy and placing a micro JUST to log a find is NOT what I'm talking about.

 

The decision to log a find or not is always situation oriented - sometimes the situation warrants a find, sometimes it might not. And sometimes a micro replacing a larger container is appropriate.

 

...Second, it hijacks the owner’s cache, if the cache is missing it’s their prerogative to either replace it or archive it.

 

It does nothing of the sort! This might be the essence of this often posted topic. The owner had to go there anyway - this fact should not be forgotten (but usually is) when passing judgment on someone else who decides to replace a container. The cache owner needs to verify personally that it is missing or have someone who knows where the cache is do it. At that time they have the option of keeping the replacement or bringing along another container. It is absolutely no extra work for the owner and they get to keep the replacement if it is worth keeping.

 

Is this a widespread problem?

 

How can someone's good intention, in what people like to call the spirit of geocaching be considered a problem? (The owner had to go visit the cache anyway.) I have not found any negative comments at any cache where I've seen this happen. Most people are happy to have some sort of container there to find. Often the owner does not go out to replace the container.

You claimed a cache that you hid as a find?

 

Whatever. I guess I'll never really understand that thought process.

 

So what if someone 'behind' you has to log a DNF?

 

It is a problem if I go looking for a cache and find the wrong damnn one. My integrity would not allow me to keep it as a find, and I'd be none too happy that I wasted so much time finding someone's lazy throw-down.

If the numbers are so important, wouldn't it be easier to just look for books in the library?

[AZcachemeister]

Perhaps, but only if someone who had previously found the cache was on-hand to verify it was missing. I was the verifier for such a situation not too long ago. It got archived nonetheless...

[+sept1c_tank]

Two times, while caching with a group (in both instances, the cache owner was present), I have found a cache that was a duplicate. What I’m saying is that at the same time, other cachers in the group discovered another cache just a few feet away at the same time.

 

In both cases, previous finders were alternately finding the duplicates; on line, it appeared that there was only one cache, but the physical logbooks were incomplete. Also, in both cases, it was the original owner who had replaced the cache when it was reported missing.

 

I know of no instances where a cache seeker has, because of the inability to find a cache, left his own cache, much less logged it. BTEHO.

[+Corp Of Discovery]

I thought I remembered this coming up before...it's even where I got the term: Markwell.

[+fizzymagic]

Some of us feel that a container replacement is worth a find.

I looked and looked and looked in the dictionary to find the place where "hide" was a synonym for "find," but I just couldn't find it. I also couldn't find the place where "find" was a unit of value.

 

The decision to log a find or not is always situation oriented -  sometimes the situation warrants a find, sometimes it might not.

 

The decision to log a find is what???

 

Geez. You find the cache and sign the logbook, it's a find. Otherwise it's not. How is that "situation oriented?"

[+budd-rdc]

There's an easy way to understand the "find count" behavior like this - video game generation. It's all about instant gratification.

 

Interestingly enough, I've encountered two of fizzymagic's hides where the cache appeared to be missing. In both cases, I correctly identified the hide location and mechanism, but did not post finds right away. In the first case, I waited for him to replace the container, then visited again to sign the log sheet to claim a find. In the second case, I volunteered to place a new container of the same type at the hide location, and he agreed to let me post a find (I didn't yet, since I hadn't solved the puzzle until recently). For both cases, two visits to each cache site.

 

Waste of gas? Not really, since the second visits were not dedicated trips. Be sure to blame your political and business leaders for high gas prices and bad energy policies, not cache owners or Groundspeak.

[+Sagefox]

Whatever. I guess I'll never really understand that thought process.

 

If a person is fixed on a rigid set of rules for find logs then they might never understand how people outside that restricted definition operate this game. Always boiling the soup down to black or white logic frequeltly misses the point and intent.

 

I have what I consider to be a very healthy set of find rules. No one is allowed to log any of my caches as a find if they don't find a container, or logbook, or substantial parts of a muggled cache. No physical evidence of substance, no find. But if they place a container for me, truly believing that the container has gone missing I will reward that effort with a find. They spent money on it, took the time to place it and then email me or post a log. If from their log I detected lazyness or lack of a fair effort and my container was actually still in place I might delete that find. This hasn't happened yet so I can't say for sure how I would lack of appropriate effort.

 

In my experience people place temporary containers with GOOD INTENTIONS to keep a cache ALIVE and not just to get a find. Why slam them for that effort? Maybe with the urban cache density of your area, Olympia to Everett, people have developed some kind of reaction to a multitude of easily muggled vulnerably placed caches. Lazy hiding effort = lazy temporary replacement? That wouldn't bother me.

 

- - -

 

The problem I have with topics like this that tout strictly ridgid interpretations, black or white logic, etc., is the the "offender of the strict rule" gets projected upon them the personality of a cheater and that they are players without integrity. And this is done without considering the merits of the specific situation. And often the naysayer statement makes it sound like the person does this all the time just to puff up their numbers. My guess is that is not true.

 

Your question about how widespread this is might help put this in perspective if it were possible get a reasonable study done. For people who take advantage of the replace and log found what is the percentage of their finds this way when compared to their regular finds? My percent of this type of is approximately 0.33% (1/3rd of one percent) of my total finds. Not exactly numbers of any measurable significance. Certainly is not skewing my stats.

 

And what about two or even three containers at a site as a result? When I run across these they are quite fun. I Hate I-5 Baldock had touble one winter. I couldn't find the container in the dark, several others over the comming weeks could not either even though it had been replaced twice by good sameritan cachers. More dnf's after that. I came along three months later with a new container to place but found the other two still there fairly close together. Finding the two was a blast. I consolidated the logs and good stuff into the best container, dumped the junk and I posted a humorous story with an all's well ending. It made it interesting. As did finding two containers in Redwood City this summer. Magnets inside a sign but by sitting at the right angle I saw both. Previous finder moved the original to just out of site resulting in a few dnfs. Owner placed another one and I came along and solved the mystery. In each of these examples the cache find became three times as fun by solving the mystery and trading email with the owner. More interesting than just finding the magnet micros themselves.

 

Two or three containers at a site is a problem? You are talking to the wrong guy here because rather than complain about it (even when it happens to mine) I see it as an interesting addition to the game.

 

- - -

 

This game can be played with a lighter hand then your opinions promote and still people will enjoy the experience and will be playing with integrity, trustworthyness and they will feel good about it.

[ATMouse]

I am such an ignoramus!

 

1) Never heard of such a thing.

2) Never would think to do such a thing.

3) Never would have the sheer cheek and nerve to do such a thing.

4) Would rip the heart out of someone who did this to my cache.

5) Am running out of words to express my disgust that somone would do such a thing.

 

And to me it's just creating trash at the site of the cache and carries the potential to have permission withdrawn for the cache altogether.

Edited November 15, 2005 by ATMouse

[+briansnat]

I was confident (and correct) in my determination that the caches were, in fact, missing and that I found the exact spot.

 

I wish I had a buck for every DNF log for one of my caches where the person was confident it was missing, and was wrong. It would buy me a nice dinner out.

 

If a person is fixed on a rigid set of rules for find logs then they might never understand how people outside that restricted definition operate this game. Always boiling the soup down to black or white logic frequeltly misses the point and intent.

 

Actually, adding different shades of grey is what misses the point and intent. The point of a "found it" log is to indicate that you found a cache. Not that you found where you think the cache was, or that you did the owner a "favor".

 

Unlike Criminal I do understand the mindset of people who falsely claim finds on caches. They are in this for the numbers and will use any excuse for a smiley. For some reason their sense of self worth is tied to the number next to their name. The thing is that the most people know who they are and are quite unimpressed.

Edited November 15, 2005 by briansnat

[+beejay&esskay]

Unlike Criminal I do understand the mindset of people who falsely claim finds on caches.  They are in this for the numbers and will use any excuse for a smiley. For some reason their sense of self worth is tied to the number next to their name. The thing is that the most people know who they are and are quite unimpressed.

I'll take a slightly more charitable view of these hider/finders.

 

They are trying to clear an area of unfound caches. If the cache is missing, they can't report a find to clear it on their unfound list. So they replace it. Now they still need to "find" it to clear it.

 

It's a bad idea for all the reasons listed above. But I do understand (not condone) it.

Edited November 15, 2005 by beejay&esskay

[+Team Red Oak]

As the owner of the cache couldn't you tell the person who put down the new cache to go and pick it up? I know they may or may not.

 

Maybe give them a week to pick up their crap and then go check on it yourself and if their micro is still there, pick it up and verify yours is still there or repair/replace yours then go home and delete their log as they never found it to begin with.

 

I know you shouldn't have to do any of this because they never should have dropped a new cache to begin with, but sometimes I have a low tolerance for things. We are just starting to put together our first cache, it would just tick me off to have someone drop another becasue they couldn't find ours.

[+Yamahammer]

I was confident (and correct) in my determination that the caches were, in fact, missing and that I found the exact spot.

 

I wish I had a buck for every DNF log for one of my caches where the person was confident it was missing, and was wrong. It would buy me a nice dinner out.

Try collecting 'Where's george Dollars'!

 

[+sTeamTraen]

How about if:

- someone reports a DNF

- the owner - who is an idiot - goes to the site and can't find the cache either

- the owner places a replacement

- someone finds both caches

 

Yes, gentle reader, I was that idiotic owner: here (May 2 and before)

[+Sagefox]

Unlike Criminal I do understand the mindset of people who falsely claim finds on caches.

You would have to define "falsely" a little more tightly. There are many conditions that would constitue a false or unqualified find that are clear to almost everyone. This basic aspect of this game is alive, healthy and well.

 

If, however, you want to lump in every kind of find that you personally don't believe qualifies but others, owners and finders, do then you might be missing the intent of those actions.

 

What is also missing here is that this action is skewed by discussing it in the forums. I am reasonably sure this is not the "widespread problem" that OP asked about. This is a miniscule element of geocaching. The numbers are low in the real world but if five people make a stink about it in the forums it looks disproportionatley large.

 

They are in this for the numbers and will use any excuse for a smiley. For some reason their sense of self worth is tied to the number next to their name. The thing is that the most people know who they are and are quite unimpressed.

 

I always love it when this old timer is pulled out, dusted off and flung on the table as the ultimate answer for every disagreement about how someone logged a particular find. One answer fits all? No discussion needed (or wanted).

 

You are pretty sure that the type of finds and replacement caches discussed in this topic are strictly for the numbers?

 

Do you actually believe that this happens in any quantity that makes a significant difference in anyone's find count?

 

And you are pretty sure that all who replace caches and log them as finds have alow sense of self worth? Thats a new one to me - accurate psychological assessment made from a distance by reading two sentences in a find log.

[+Renegade Knight]

How about if:

- someone reports a DNF

- the owner - who is an idiot - goes to the site and can't find the cache either

- the owner places a replacement

- someone finds both caches

 

Yes, gentle reader, I was that idiotic owner: here (May 2 and before)

Finding your own cache can be a major problem. Especially since you know where you hid it but finders can't seem to put it back and move it to a new spot. Now when I can't find my own cache I aske the last finder for a hint, or to take a look if they are in the area to ensure my archive didn't create geo litter.

 

For what it's worth I've seen up to three caches in one spot...All placed by the owner to replace the missing caches...

[+wandererrob]

You go to the cache location and cannot find the cache

 

There are a few cases where the cacher simply drops a new (usually a micro) at the location and then logs the cache as “found”. That takes some nerve. First, you are assuming that the cache is missing, not that it was hidden too well for you. Second, it hijacks the owner’s cache, if the cache is missing it’s their prerogative to either replace it or archive it.

 

Is this a widespread problem? I notice that in the the Found it = Didn’t find it thread this seems to come up often.

I saw this very scenario while I was in Nevada recently. We simply DNF'd the cache. The next finder deemed it missing and replaced it. I thought that was odd. Turns out it was in fact muggled, but the owner seemed unphazed by somebody replacing his cache for him.

 

*shrug* Seems silly to me. Just DNF the find and get in touch with the owner if one thinks the cache is missing. Let the owner do what they see fit.

[+wandererrob]

Ditto Lep's post plus one.

I have been on a group cache hunt where we found both containers on two seperate occasions. We found out later on that one of the duplicates had been placed by the owner; he couldn't find his own cache!

Sometimes people don't put the cache back where they found it. I've even heard of a case where the finder said the coords were off, found the container, and moved it to where THEY thought the coords were.

 

So, it's not unheard of for owner's to have trouble finding there own. Must be annoying for the owner.

[+Stunod]

I've replaced 2 caches when I've been out. 1- found cache but container was not doing so well. 2- same as above but cache owner was with. I still feel better about #2, but at least we did find the container on #1 first. If we didn't find it I never would have put one there.

 

I have seen it quite often (too often as a matter of fact) and call them 'throw downs' (sort of like what unethical police have been rumored to do). There was one that another cacher and I were going for that was the oldest in a state, I logged a DNF, the other cacher with me logged an SBA. Some other cachers there the same day dropped one and then logged it.....

Yes, there are few cachers in our area who are "known" for using the "throw-down" cache. They visited a cache outside our local area and pulled this stunt and were quickly jumped by the locals on the cache page. I guess we have just grown numb to their actions around here.

[+Jeep_Dog]

It is a problem if I go looking for a cache and find the wrong damnn one. My integrity would not allow me to keep it as a find, and I'd be none too happy that I wasted so much time finding someone's lazy throw-down.

If the numbers are so important, wouldn't it be easier to just look for books in the library?

I second that. I could care a less about someone dropping another cache and claiming a find, if it did not impact others. Yet, in this case, such a cacher could indeed impact others.

 

Fortunately, I have only encountered one of these situations. I found a cache, the cache fit the description perfectly, even the top page in the micro's logbook stated the cache name and who placed it. The logs coincided about 90% with the online logs, so I thought I had the cache.

 

However, the lid had critter bites on it that went all the way through, compromising the log. I let the owner know on line, the owner went and checked. He emailed me back that the lid was fine, but he did not find my entry in the log, nor the entry for the previous 25 or so cachers. Uh-oh. I changed my find to a note, since I realized I had found a doppleganger, courtesy of some previous lazy cacher.

 

A week later, the owner found the doppleganger (after 3 attempts, since the second hide was just as sneaky has his original), and it was only 6 or so inches from the original (on the other side of a tree). The owner collected up the doppleganger, and get this... put the doppleganger log in with the original log in the original cache.

 

The owner sent me an email and stated "you can change back to a find, since your log is in the cache." Apparently, this owner took responsibility for not catching more than two dozen physical entries not matching up on line, and thought the doppleganger was at the same coordinates and an almost duplicate hide, so allowed credit for all the finders of the doppleganger. Pretty thoughtful owner.

 

Yes, I changed my entry online back to a find. I intend to someday get this one again, but it is over 1300 miles away, so it may take a while (no, I will not take a second "find").

 

In this case, the action of a cacher out there impacted over two dozen other cachers and the owner. Again, I could care a less what folks do with their own stats (unless it is a bogus entry on one of my caches, in that case I abide by the guidelines and enforce proper on-line logging), but am adamantly against their actions impacting others. The person who placed the second one may have done so with good intentions (they obviously took pains to make it look like it was "the" cache), but even good intentions can really screw things up. The only instance I would replace a cache is if the owner was with me (I do not believe in a telephone hide, since I agree with another poster in that then it would be "mine") or if I was cache-sitting while someone was out of town.

[+nfa]

I've been the idiot owner before...

 

2 people posted DNFs on a cache of mine, so I went out to check, and sure enough it was gone, so I replaced it...

 

I posted my cache maintenance, a couple of people found it fine, and then a local who starts looking for the cache long before ground zero found the old one (which had been relocated by a "helpful" cacher who assumed my coordinates were off) about 50 feet from the actual cache, which another member of their party found at the same time...

 

They sent an email relating their experience, and told me that they decided to leave both containers at the correct spot...

 

I went out and merged the 2 caches into one, and took the extra container home, shaking my head at "helpers"...

 

jamie

[+sTeamTraen]

Or how about this one (logs from 2004):

 

- seeker logged DNF

- owner said "cache is missing" and archived it

- another seeker came along (having printed out the cache sheet before the archive date) and found the cache - and placed my TB in it!

- owner didn't take any notice...

 

Finally I had to get the reviewer to un-archive the cache...

[Pto]

I had a cacher go to one of my hides, (which is temporarily disabled) They were going to replace it for me- yet had never found the original cache. They posted a note saying that they couldnt replace, because the cache spot is underwater.

No Kidding? (that is why I had to temp disable it- It was flooded/underwater since early July-just now coming above water)

 

So, how is a cacher to know where to replace My cache, if They never found it to begin with? I understand the Nice cacher idea, but if youve never found a cache- I dont see how you'd be capable of replacing it. Not knowing the hide spot, the container type, etc-

Nice, or overbearing>?

[+StarBrand]

I've replaced one after a DNF and then logged it. It was a film can and the lid was nailed to a fence post at the base - found the labeled lid but film canister was gone - found soggy logsheet nearby. Replaced can with new one and logbook - took a picture just to be sure and logged it when the owner verified. However, it was really obvious due to the nail.

[+JohnnyVegas]

How about this. I checked on one of my micros after some very experianced cacher posted DNFs. I could not find it so I place another one. Then someone finds the new micro 3 feet from the old one. I guess sometimes the camo can be to good.

[+GeoRoo]

I thought I was FTF on a new cache at a rest stop when the archived mag key holder migrated a good 250 ft. away. I wasn't able to log for 4 days and was surprised to see a FTF claim several days after my find.....HUH???? The new cache was placed very close to where I found the key holder. How it got way over there is a mystery.

 

I've replaced one micro. It was a 10 mile hike and hadn't been found yet after 8 months. The cache site was a helocopter landing pad and I knew they had been using it to airlift out a injured hiker earlier that Fall, so it was obvious that it had blown away. I did not log it as a find. I contacted the owner and told him what I did and he thanked me. As a cache owner I wouldn't have any problem with someone helping me out like that.

 

Every situation is different. I have one cache that is about a 7 mile hike that came up missing this summer. Muggles found it and moved it about 200 ft away. Geocacher found it sitting out in the open at a campsite no where near the cords or hint and left it sitting there. I rehide the cache exactly as I find it. but this is one time I wish the cacher had helped out. 7 mile hike and it took me over an hour to find my missing cache!.......

[+briansnat]

Fortunately, I have only encountered one of these situations. I found a cache, the cache fit the description perfectly, even the top page in the micro's logbook stated the cache name and who placed it. The logs coincided about 90% with the online logs, so I thought I had the cache.

 

However, the lid had critter bites on it that went all the way through, compromising the log. I let the owner know on line, the owner went and checked. He emailed me back that the lid was fine, but he did not find my entry in the log, nor the entry for the previous 25 or so cachers

 

I'm guilty of doing something like this. A cache I had found started getting a bunch of DNFs. The owner posted a note saying he would not be able to get there for at least a month to check on it, so I offered to check it for him. He took me up on my offer and I went to the site and sure enough the cache was gone. I replaced it with a similar size container, new logbook and trade items.

 

Soon the found it logs started flowing in. Then, strangely, some logs started mentioning trade items that were placed in the original cache. I headed back out and found my cache and there were logs that indicated that people had found it. I continued searching and found the original cache about 3 feet away.

[CoyoteRed]

...container has gone missing I will reward that effort with a find.

I think there are two camps in this discussion; one that wouldn't think of replacing a cache they couldn't find and then claiming a find, and the other thinks it is prefectly acceptible. (I'm not going to go into the issue of finding geo-litter and claiming a find as that is completely different.)

 

It might boil down to the above quote.

 

Some folks see a smilie as having some sort of value in and of itself. Being "rewarded" a smilie even though the person can't claim a smilie is giving it value beyond what it was intended--a simple icon denoting one found the cache.

 

I can see the other camp as viewing the smilie and Found It log as merely a feedback tool seperating the successful attempt from the unsuccessful or other types of feedback.

 

How you look at this issue boils down to the value you place on a smilie versus the experience earning the smilie.

[+Sagefox]

...container has gone missing I will reward that effort with a find.

I think there are two camps in this discussion; one that wouldn't think of replacing a cache they couldn't find and then claiming a find, and the other thinks it is prefectly acceptible. (I'm not going to go into the issue of finding geo-litter and claiming a find as that is completely different.)

 

It might boil down to the above quote.

 

Some folks see a smilie as having some sort of value in and of itself. Being "rewarded" a smilie even though the person can't claim a smilie is giving it value beyond what it was intended--a simple icon denoting one found the cache.

 

I can see the other camp as viewing the smilie and Found It log as merely a feedback tool seperating the successful attempt from the unsuccessful or other types of feedback.

 

How you look at this issue boils down to the value you place on a smilie versus the experience earning the smilie.

Very well said. A concise definition of the two points of view on this topic.

 

Find = found a physical container (or qualified for virtual or locationless find).

 

Find = reward for effort.

 

I did a bit more research into my own reward side activity and could only find one instance where I claimed a reward for replacing a container. I have probably replaced 20 or 30 containers in four years where I had either previously been or for a container I found damaged and vulnerable to rain. I have rewarded somewhere between 5 and 10 finds for effort at 100 caches. By my calculations:

 

My reward represents 0.0007% of my total finds.

 

My reward represents 0.007% of my total no-finds.

 

Rewards I have issued represent 0.0033% of the estimated total finds of my caches.

 

These numbers are hardly worth getting worked up about.

[+Sagefox]

I also agree with OP's (assumed) reason for this topic and others' comments here that if someone were to make a steady practice of adding a container when they can't find a cache simply to claim a find that action would be improper. I can see a high likelihood that I would delete a self-claimed reward on one of my caches if I thought it to be an abuse of this philosophy.

 

All my comments are strictly limited to peoples' VERY LIMITED activity where a find is offered or taken for a effort that promotes the spirit of fun that this game represents to me.

[+Criminal]

Maybe that’s where the disconnect is then. I see a “FIND” as meaning that you found the cache container and signed the logbook. I don’t understand the philosophy of granting someone a find for something, no matter how noble, that they did for you or geocaching. Either you looked for and found the cache, or you looked for and failed to find the cache. Anything less and the precious numbers that everyone covets are corrupt. It doesn’t necessarily bother me that there are players who cheat, although it does makes me wonder why they picked something as innocuous (and unprofitable) as geocaching to do their cheating.

 

My topic was about players who go to a cache site, do not find the cache, and drop another without ever having talked to the owner first. Their intentions are irrelevant. They did not find the cache, so it should be logged as a DNF. There is no option in the drop-down box for REWARD. However, my main point is that it is terribly presumptuous of someone to do that.

[+Sagefox]

There is no option in the drop-down box for REWARD.  However, my main point is that it is terribly presumptuous of someone to do that.

 

Yes, I understand your position but until it can be shown that someone makes a practice of this, more than a few times on an annual basis, then I won't be having a problem with it.

 

You will never get 100% agreement on your geocaching preferences but it is interesting to discuss them.

Edited November 17, 2005 by Team Sagefox