Jump to content

Logged With Permission


OzGuff

Recommended Posts

My kids and I recently spent the weekend caching in and around the Morristown, TN area. Lots of great caches! When I got around to logging them all -- I think we found 73 -- I noticed that a number of our DNFs had been logged as "finds" recently with the permission of the cache owners.

 

My DNF log for utfans' Established 1855 cache reads:

 

One of many on a tour through the area with OzMeg and Tahu. (We signed logs as either Team Oz or Team TOO.) We scoured the obvious hiding spot and came up empty. Came to the conclusion that it must be missing. (Or that I suck as a geocacher.)

 

I understand that it is entirely up to the cache owner's discretion to give permission to log a missing cache. But the way I see it is that I didn't find the cache so I didn't earn the smiley. If anyone wants to log any of my 376 hidden caches without signing any of the logs and without leaving the privacy of their own homes, feel free. (It sounds a little unreasonable when taken to the extreme, doesn't it?)

 

[My apologies to utfans for using this cache to vent. I recommend that everyone -- including me -- goes back to caching using their own rules and guidelines.]

 

When I checked my email this morning I had 377 messages, 370 of them generated by find/note logs entered by a cacher named "geoofficer". Here is what she/he logged on most of my caches:

 

Per cache owner’s bitter post to GCQ61R “If anyone wants to log any of my 376 hidden caches without signing any of the logs and without leaving the privacy of their own homes, feel free.” I’m caching in the warmth tonight. TFTClicks

 

Of course he/she cut-and-paste the majority of her/his entries -- which is an entirely different thread that ticks off cachers in TN -- so it may not have taken that long, but the timestamps seem to indicate that they were sent over a six hour time period.

 

So maybe I shouldn't have vented on utfans' cache page but I was just sharing my opinion about the practice of "finding" a cache that isn't there, even with the permission of the cache owner.

 

I have deleted one of geoofficer's logs -- there was a double find on my I Want My ATV! cache and I wouldn't want to over-inflate anyone's statistics. For some reason five of my caches weren't logged, so I await additional finds by geoofficer.

 

I'm not looking for comments -- though they are welcome -- but just wanted to inform the caching public.

 

(Maybe the topic description should have read "Why I Am Hated In TN"...)

Link to comment

Well, you post here and you are going to get comments.

 

I guess you know why you are "hated"...cache logs aren't the place to carry on the argument about what is a "find".

 

If I'd done that, I'd edit my find log to remove my argument, leaving some text about the change so anyone reading it later can understand geoofficer's comments.

 

And while I agree with you what constitutes a find, you did invite geoofficer's actions...so I'm not sure if I'd delete them, or just accept them as a consequence of an intemperate comment.

Link to comment
I guess you know why you are "hated"...cache logs aren't the place to carry on the argument about what is a "find".

My cache logs are records of my experiences related to that cache. The good, the bad, and the ugly.

 

I haven't deleted her/his finds -- OK, so the one that was a double -- and I won't. If she/he is happy going from 44 finds to 410 with a couple of mouse clicks, great.

 

My DNF log was not intemperate, nor was my forum log. I know what I am doing when I venture into the forums.

 

Cachers have their own code of ethics -- mine just doesn't include claiming a find without signing a log and/or emailing the answer to a virtual cache.

Link to comment

I don't quite follow what transpired, but I do know you uncovered a great series for the Found-it=Didn't Find it thread. Thanks!

 

Based on your side of the story, I don't see much wrong with what you did. Somebody should check into this geoofficer account. Sounds like a sockpuppet somebody made instead of logging under their own account.

 

Jamie

Link to comment

I think this geoofficer fellow is pretty funny. :lol:

 

Let the cache owners manage their own caches. I just keep caching on.

 

When I read a log like, " Didn't really find the cache, but I know I was in the immediate area of the cache, so I'm logging a find." it just makes me laugh!

 

Doesn't bother me a lick. Don't feel like I need to send them an e-mail. Doesn't affect my enjoyment of this game one iota. I believe my stats page is for MY purposes; merely a record of my progress for ME. Shouldn't matter to anyone else. Even geoofficer, when he/she looks at their page, can laugh to their friends, "yeah I really only have 44 finds, the others were bogus to tick another cacher off." it's their business! THEY know they didn't find those 300+ caches, and it's THEIR stats!

 

The only way any of this should affect any of us is if there was some form of actual competion, or winning/losing. Focus on your own finds, goals, progress, and just ignore other peoples logs if you anticipate any angst from doing so.

 

If you're the cache owner, it's up to you to make a call on the goofy logs. There's another topic about deleting these logs as a cache owner, so that's another debate altogether. But certainly, I will do NO policing of other cachers AS a cacher.

 

(all this being said, I believe the OP didn't mean any harm by their cache log and these TN cachers probably should ignore THAT log if they don't like it!)

Link to comment

Ok, I am a little confused about what happened.

 

1. you (OzGuff, or team oz or whatever) went caching in TN. You didn't find some of the caches you looked for. You logged them DNF. Other people logged them found, apperenty with the owners permission.

You posted a DNF on utfans cache, in which you explained why you logged them as DNF.

 

2. You also posted saying people cold log finds on your caches without finding the cache if they wanted. Someone did.

 

Is that right? (I really don't care, but I'm trying to figure this out)

Link to comment
apparently...it fits SOME one's code of ethics.

There is not a single activity that doesn't fit SOMEone's code of ethics.

 

Think of an activity, any activity ... ANY activity. Yep, fits SOMEbody's code of ethics.

 

Statements like this are similar to "at least he has a moral compass and he's following it." Many times said of Bush. But it could also be said of any great leader, or any dictator or terrorist leader in the world. Name one and you can say they followed their own moral compass.

 

...it just might not be the one you or I like, or one that is acceptable to group at large.

Link to comment
apparently...it fits SOME one's code of ethics.

There is not a single activity that doesn't fit SOMEone's code of ethics.

 

Think of an activity, any activity ... ANY activity. Yep, fits SOMEbody's code of ethics.

 

Statements like this are similar to "at least he has a moral compass and he's following it." Many times said of Bush. But it could also be said of any great leader, or any dictator or terrorist leader in the world. Name one and you can say they followed their own moral compass.

 

...it just might not be the one you or I like, or one that is acceptable to group at large.

exactly.

 

I think it has been established many times that there are as many ways to "play this game" as there are cachers out there.

 

My opinion...where as what geoofficer did is not soemthing I'd feel comfortable doing, he/she was merely taking another cacher up on their "offer", regardless of how flippantly offered.

Link to comment
Ok, I am a little confused about what happened.

 

1. you (OzGuff, or team oz or whatever) went caching in TN. You didn't find some of the caches you looked for. You logged them DNF. Other people logged them found, apperenty with the owners permission.

You posted a DNF on utfans cache, in which you explained why you logged them as DNF.

 

2. You also posted saying people cold log finds on your caches without finding the cache if they wanted. Someone did.

 

Is that right? (I really don't care, but I'm trying to figure this out)

You seem to understand the situation pretty well. While logging my finds I noticed that on a few of my DNFs other cachers had recently logged "finds" with the permission of the cache owner. [emote sarcasm](That is, the cache was likely not there but the cacher either asked for permission to claim a find since they were in the same state as the "missing" cache or were proactively granted permission to claim a find by the cache owner since a DNF on one of their caches would reflect badly on their self-worth.)[/sarcasm]

 

As an example of taking the above practice to the extreme I "offered" my caches as a place to get free finds from the comfort of your own home. geoofficer took me up on the "offer." Apparently, sarcasm is lost on some folks.

 

Life goes on...

Link to comment
Nobody likes a critic.

That is the last straw! I am now going to log bogus finds on all two of BlueDeuce's non-archived caches in protest of his/her opinion! :ph34r:

 

And I thought that the forums existed almost exclusively FOR critics...

Hey, better a critic than a curmudgeon, I always say.

 

And trust me I say that allll the time. :lol:

Link to comment
OzGuff, you're probably hated just as much everywhere (I doubt those in TN are singling you out)!  :ph34r:

 

And I can't believe you deleted goofofficer's duplicate find.  That's the kind of activity that get's you hated.  :ph34r:  :lol:

I laughed out loud at your first line! Then I re-read it and couldn't figure if you meant that the other 49 states hate me just as much OR that TN cachers hate everyone else too. Or maybe both...

 

I did note your typo in spelling geoofficer's name. Did I say "typo"?

 

And I sent him/her a nice email explaining why I deleted the duplicate post. I am sure it was unintentional; it can't be easy logging 370 caches at one sitting.

 

Did geoofficer break the standing record for most caches "found" in a 24-hour period? I'm sure those German cachers are already planning how to re-take the record!! :lol:

Link to comment

I have a question...WHY are people logging the find, if the cache isn't there? i.e...why hasn't the cache owner rectified the situation, by disabling the listing? If more than one person logs one of mine as a DNF, and I haven't had the cahnce to get otu to it...I'm gonna disable it until it can be confirmed missing, or replaced.

 

Sure..I may tell some one who obviuosly was in the right area, "sure, go ahead and log it for your trouble" and leave it up to them to "claim the smiley".

 

But how long should one let that go on with out replacing the cache?

Link to comment
I gotta admit, I admire Geoofficer's determination to log each and every one of your caches.

 

I'd have gotten bored and quit after 40 or 50 logs. :lol:

He/She actually missed five of my caches. But the day is young!

 

And I am sure you would have logged 70-80 before getting bored... :ph34r:

Link to comment
But how long should one let that go on with out replacing the cache?

In the defense of cache owners in the Morristown, TN area, there are lots of caches in that neck of the woods. Cache-density is high so cache hunters flock there. With the high numbers of cachers zipping around the area it would be easy for a cache to rack up a bunch of DNFs in a short amount of time.

 

I don't go out and check on every cache of mine that has a DNF (unless I happen to be in the area). But if I get two or three a maintenance trip is warranted.

 

The good news for me is that I now have verification that all (or most) of my caches are in good condition and do not require maintenance at this time. :lol:

Link to comment
BTW, we've politely turned down many an offer to convert a DNF to a smilie. Smilies just aren't important enough to falsify a log even if with the cache onwer's blessings.

Ditto. Ditto.

 

I don't understand the reasoning of a cache owner wanting to turn someone else's DNF into a find for them because of a missing cache. That is part of the game; you can't find them all.

Link to comment
BTW, we've politely turned down many an offer to convert a DNF to a smilie.  Smilies just aren't important enough to falsify a log even if with the cache onwer's blessings.

Ditto. Ditto.

 

I don't understand the reasoning of a cache owner wanting to turn someone else's DNF into a find for them because of a missing cache. That is part of the game; you can't find them all.

on one hand, I totally agree with this philosophy.

 

But I also want people to continue to search for my caches, adn if allowing soem one a smiley for one taht was missing...through NO FAULT of that searcher, by all means, if you can describe fro me where you looked, and I KNOW you should have had it in hand had it been there, I just see no point in a hard and fast "no, you didn't sign the book, no smiley for you".

 

Every one has their own feelings on it. I happen to see both sides, and can agree with points for each. I think it is up the individual cacher to decide, as it is up to the hider to "allow" such finds.

Link to comment
But I also want people to continue to search for my caches, adn if allowing soem one a smiley for one taht was missing...through NO FAULT of that searcher, by all means, if you can describe fro me where you looked, and I KNOW you should have had it in hand had it been there, I just see no point in a hard and fast "no, you didn't sign the book, no smiley for you".

So the cache that is "hidden" in plain sight 20 feet up a lightpole is OK to log as a find because you SAW the cache? Even though you had no way to scale said lightpole?

 

Of course, the cache owner COULD give you permission to log the cache as a find but I think that that is unlikely. The whole point of placing a cache 20 feet up a lightpole is to get folks to figure out how to retrieve it.

 

It seems that the easiest "rule" to follow is that if you sign the log then you found the cache. Everything else is shades of light black or dark white.

Link to comment

Just my 2 cents. To me a FIND is when you FIND the object you are looking for.

 

If you are in the right spot but you DO NOT FIND the object then its a DNF .

 

Maybe im wrong here but isnt the idea to find SOMETHING not just find the place SOMETHING should be ?

 

Atleast thats how im playing the game with my kids.

 

J

Link to comment
But I also want people to continue to search for my caches, adn if allowing soem one a smiley for one taht was missing...through NO FAULT of that searcher, by all means, if you can describe fro me where you looked, and I KNOW you should have had it in hand had it been there, I just see no point in a hard and fast "no, you didn't sign the book, no smiley for you".

So the cache that is "hidden" in plain sight 20 feet up a lightpole is OK to log as a find because you SAW the cache? Even though you had no way to scale said lightpole?

 

Of course, the cache owner COULD give you permission to log the cache as a find but I think that that is unlikely. The whole point of placing a cache 20 feet up a lightpole is to get folks to figure out how to retrieve it.

 

It seems that the easiest "rule" to follow is that if you sign the log then you found the cache. Everything else is shades of light black or dark white.

exceptions to every rule. That type is hidden specifically to MAKE you find a way to retrieve it and sign it. not my style of hide (thankfully).

Link to comment
Nobody likes a critic.

That is the last straw! I am now going to log bogus finds on all two of BlueDeuce's non-archived caches in protest of his/her opinion! ;)

 

And I thought that the forums existed almost exclusively FOR critics...

I was thinking of sitting down tonight and logging all those thousands of DNF's still awaiting me in GC's database. Maybe I could get the record for most DNF's! B)B):D

Link to comment

Yep -- those extra five email notifications are definitely going to push me right over the edge...

 

I just emailed her/him with a link to this thread. My last line was, "I'm guessing you are 12. Maybe 13. Am I close?"

 

Are we having fun yet? ;)

Link to comment
Yep -- those extra five email notifications are definitely going to push me right over the edge...

 

I just emailed her/him with a link to this thread. My last line was, "I'm guessing you are 12. Maybe 13. Am I close?"

 

Are we having fun yet? ;)

Most of the 12/13yo cachers _I_ know behave better than that.

 

I'm guessing... 45 or so.

Link to comment
I just emailed her/him with a link to this thread. My last line was, "I'm guessing you are 12. Maybe 13. Am I close?"

 

Are we having fun yet?  ;)

Most of the 12/13yo cachers _I_ know behave better than that.

 

I'm guessing... 45 or so.

This thread has produced many chuckles! Thanks for another one!!

Link to comment

On the other hand .... If we find the cache, and the log is soaking wet and un-signable, we add in a dry sheet of paper, sign it, and log it as found. Once logged we E-mail the owner and report the condition of his/her cache so that they can do maintenance. The important thing here is that we did find it.

;) ImpalaBob

Link to comment
Yep -- those extra five email notifications are definitely going to push me right over the edge...

 

I just emailed her/him with a link to this thread. My last line was, "I'm guessing you are 12. Maybe 13. Am I close?"

 

Are we having fun yet?  ;)

Most of the 12/13yo cachers _I_ know behave better than that.

 

I'm guessing... 45 or so.

Hey, I resemble that comment!

Link to comment
On the other hand .... If we find the cache, and the log is soaking wet and un-signable, we add in a dry sheet of paper, sign it, and log it as found. Once logged we E-mail the owner and report the condition of his/her cache so that they can do maintenance. The important thing here is that we did find it.

;) ImpalaBob

It sounds like your caching ethics are in no danger of being slighted. If I have a spare log handy -- and I usually do -- I will also replace the old one. (I also try to dry the wet log, scan it, and email a copy to the cache owner or snail mail the original if possible.)

 

However, I think that the "finds" by geoofficer don't quite follow your high ethical standards. Yes, I was flippant with my offer. But my right to post almost anything I want to a find/note/DNF log -- within reason and Groundspeak guidelines -- remains. She/He is being a tad petty and childish.

 

Jamie Z posited a sockpuppet account, and I think that that is likely. I have had contact from a cacher in NE-Tennessee with a name. It will be interesting if that person ever steps forward to take credit.

Link to comment
It seems that the easiest "rule" to follow is that if you sign the log then you found the cache.

 

good rule to live by Ahh yes.

 

;)

Thanks for pointing out an early indiscretion in my caching career. This "find" occurred exactly 21 days after my first ever find; my caching ethic was still being formed. (Kudos for also posting my log for the same cache 6+ months later where I rectified the situation by signing the log of the now-replaced cache. And I traded up too!)

 

But this thread isn't about claiming a find when the cache isn't there. (See Jamie Z for that thread.) I await more constructive criticisms or supportive comments...

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...