The Northumbrians Turn For A Rant

January 9, 2006

I had a log on my cache GC8E82 ON 8TH Dec last (Stoterley Hill) , It didn't say much just "nice one"

a new cacher out and about so I thought I would see who they were and where they had been. done well they had given the distance between some of the caches on the same day. anyway on sat last I had to go up and replase the cache box new doulle screw top lid after the single screw top lid was having condesation problems. looked in the log book and no log from that cacher. futher on during the day I did another cache that this cacher reckons they have done , only to find no log in the book for them, and I went on to do another that I already done but just felt like a good walk up from Rookhope to be met at Dead Friars by marg to pick me up, no log there either, met up with another cacher at Blanchland an mentioned it to him , cos I know that this person says he has logged his caches as well. and as well as some of his friends caches a few miles east, they were checked yesterday and no logs in the book, I no some will say " you play the game as you like" but this way of doing caching is not even taking part in the game

as yet I have not had a reply asking why no log in the cache books, I dont expect to get a reply. So at the end of the week I will be deleting his log,

I will feel no remorse by deleting cos I dont like cheats.How many of you feel the same way ? and I wonder how many of the 39 caches have even been visited by them hundreds of miles apart on the same day and mind you I have no scrouples about naming and shaming

Nige <_<

2.5k · January 9, 2006

I did 27 in one day that were 700+ miles apart

1.7k · January 9, 2006

Couldn't agree more. The thing about playing the game your own way is fine, but in this case, it sounds like the cacher is simply logging them online as and when he feels like it. If a cache has gone missing in action, and he posts a find log, its going to make the owner think all is well... <_<

One wonders what he gets out of this as well! The thrill of the typing???

Dave

1.7k · January 9, 2006

I did 27 in one day that were 700+ miles apart

yeah moote, but we all know AUTHENTIC geocachers are mad anyway... <_< Besides, I bet you signed the log book!

2.5k · January 9, 2006

I did 27 in one day that were 700+ miles apart

yeah moote, but we all know AUTHENTIC geocachers are mad anyway... Besides, I bet you signed the log book!

I guess that it is unusual, as usually you see logs of people who never fill in on the site and not the otherway round

January 9, 2006

That's not "playing the game by your own rules" it's not playing the game at all. I believe cache owners can delete logs? Well lets hope that most of them are on the ball regarding this alleged non-caching cacher (and any others out there), and with any luck he'll get bored of the thrill of the typing (like the idea, Dave!) when it all gets returned to sender...

1.4k · January 9, 2006

I had this once. I deleted the log and a little while later they re-logged it. I decided in the end that if they got a real thrill out of typing logs then who was I to deny them that pleasure <_<

It wasn't long before they got bored and gave up the game.

January 9, 2006

One reason could be that the cachers written English is not up to much. My brother runs a mile when he has to write something, and let's face it my spelling is not up to much.

I would say that the cacher should at least date and sign the log book, it is a fundamental of the game. Personally I would try and make contact and welcome them to the sport, as I have done in the past with some logs, and if they did not reply in a timely fashion delete the log.

The exception I would make to this is if it is clear the cacher has been to the cash or can be vouched for by someone who did. For example, if any of my family or friends who did a cache with me but did not want to sign the log want to go back and log the find online I would have no objection.

January 9, 2006

No log = No find.

3.1k · January 9, 2006

I agree... No Log = No find...

Except perhaps when you physically cannot log for some reason like the log book being a mushy wet mess! <_<

1.5k · January 9, 2006

I once did a cache in London where the holder was almost impossible to open. Just as I was thinking 'I will take picture of the holder as proof that I was there' it gave, and I was able to sign the log.

If I hadn't been able to open it, would not the photo of the container, sent to the owner, be sufficient proof?

1.8k · January 9, 2006

Generally I agree with no log = no find except perhaps where it was impossible to sign although those with writing difficulty might use a letterboxing type stamp.

But I have just looked at the Groundspeak FAQs which read:-

"Geocaching is a relatively new phenomenon. Therefore, the rules are very simple:

1. Take something from the cache

2. Leave something in the cache

3. Write about it in the logbook

Where you place a cache is up to you. "

So equal importance is given to swaps as signing the log!!??

If so I am breaking the "rules" as I rarely swap.

Then if you read the guide to finding your first cache it suggests that many cachers do not swap.

OK it is only playing with words BUT ....! <_<

January 9, 2006

I once did a cache in London where the holder was almost impossible to open. Just as I was thinking 'I will take picture of the holder as proof that I was there' it gave, and I was able to sign the log.

If I hadn't been able to open it, would not the photo of the container, sent to the owner, be sufficient proof?

No log = No find.

Cache says 'in 35mm film canister' accompanied by generic picture of you with film canister.

Where do you draw the line, I visited a cache that was archived hours before. Could I have taken a pic of the location, think not.

PS It wasn't Old Father Thames was it ?

I had the same problem.. <_<

January 9, 2006

In general, I think no log=no find but I have recently accepted a find where the person had solved one of my puzzles (where you solve the puzzle at the site) but couldn't write in the logbook as the previous finders had dismantled part of the cache. I think a little bit of leeway where soemone has a good reason for not being able to log is reasonable.

And I should add that the person emailed me to ask before logging.

Edited January 9, 2006 by Pieman

January 9, 2006

I did 27 in one day that were 700+ miles apart

yeah moote, but we all know AUTHENTIC geocachers are mad anyway... Besides, I bet you signed the log book!

I guess that it is unusual, as usually you see logs of people who never fill in on the site and not the otherway round

As opposed to Milton who posted a DNF on one of my caches this weekend, that I know full well he found!

He's past 200 so he's obviously not countng anymore. <_<

DNF

1.5k · January 9, 2006

I once did a cache in London where the holder was almost impossible to open. Just as I was thinking 'I will take picture of the holder as proof that I was there' it gave, and I was able to sign the log.

If I hadn't been able to open it, would not the photo of the container, sent to the owner, be sufficient proof?

No log = No find.

Cache says 'in 35mm film canister' accompanied by generic picture of you with film canister.

Where do you draw the line, I visited a cache that was archived hours before. Could I have taken a pic of the location, think not.

PS It wasn't Old Father Thames was it ?

I had the same problem..

I agree with you about the possibility of fraud, but, without giving this cache away, this was a most unusual container.

I could have photographed the rather distinctive location as well!

I guess the other alternative would be to go and buy and screwdriver and go back to the cache!

Edited January 9, 2006 by walkergeoff

1.8k · January 9, 2006

As opposed to the caches where the lid is tight - and there are a few of those nailbreakers - there are a few where part of the puzzle is opening the box, i.e. you have to find the right way in either by finding a key in a TB or finding a way to manipulate the lock to get it open. A photo would not suffice for those. <_<

Edited January 9, 2006 by John Stead

1.5k · January 9, 2006

As opposed to the caches where the lid is tight - and there are a few of those nailbreakers - there are a few where part of the puzzle is opening the box, i.e. you have to find the right way in either by finding a key in a TB or finding a way to manipulate the lock to get it open. A photo would not suffice for those.

I agree.

The logs for this cache show that a number of cachers had trouble opening it, but still logged a find, and their logs were not deleted.

Edited January 9, 2006 by walkergeoff

2.3k · January 9, 2006

the person you are talking about has logged the last part of the famous five series by dezi

i did not check to see if you had done that series or not nige, but if you have you will know there is no way you could log the fifth part without doing the first four parts too

this looks very suss to me <_<

none of mine done yet but quite a few close by

i would never even think to check if someone who logged one of my caches had actually signed the log book, i just take all caches as being honest, whats the point in logging a cache on line and not actually doing it, seems daft to me no point at all

i agree with the rest no log = no find .....delete the entry

M

2.5k · January 9, 2006

Like all hard and fast rules, there will always be some discretionary exceptions. I let somebody log one of my caches which they only found the remnants of.

However, I think you are doing exactly as I would do. Contact the person and verify that they have visted the cache. If no satisfactory reply within a week or so then delete the logs. Seems very fair to me.

January 9, 2006

the person you are talking about has logged the last part of the famous five series by dezi

i did not check to see if you had done that series or not nige, but if you have you will know there is no way you could log the fifth part without doing the first four parts too

this looks very suss to me

none of mine done yet but quite a few close by

Never got round yet to do that one Mandy, weather permitting I am doing 4 others this week-end that this cacher claims to have found and it's 4 that I havn't done myself yet.

I have had emails from other cachers this morning that this person claims to logged caches belonging to them and no logs have been found in the cache log book,after checking them out. They are waiting to see if he replies to my email, but somehow I dont think I will get a reply. so his stats numbers are going to get smaller. Also quite a few have been logged in Scotland and Derbyshire.

Nige

3.1k · January 9, 2006

I let somebody log one of my caches which they only found the remnants of.

Yeah - I too would allow that - like when one of mine was muggled, I allowed Beds Clangers to log it as they found the remnants of the cache! <_<

January 9, 2006

I had a log on my cache GC8E82 ON 8TH Dec last (Stoterley Hill)

Anyone noticed the anagram of Armchair cacher yet ?

Sort of gives it away I think <_<

January 9, 2006

Probably a sock puppet building up a profile before posting on the forums <_<

January 9, 2006

I had a log on my cache GC8E82 ON 8TH Dec last (Stoterley Hill)

Anyone noticed the anagram of Armchair cacher yet ?

Sort of gives it away I think

Well done the Royles, I never even thought of about that ,I can delete the log now

and let the others who dont use the forum know

<_<

Nige

1.7k · January 9, 2006

I had a log on my cache GC8E82 ON 8TH Dec last (Stoterley Hill)

Anyone noticed the anagram of Armchair cacher yet ?

Sort of gives it away I think

Well done the Royles, I never even thought of about that ,I can delete the log now

and let the others who dont use the forum know

Nige

look, for those of us at work, and therefore without any brain to hand - you're going to have to explain!

2.5k · January 9, 2006

I guess that it is unusual, as usually you see logs of people who never fill in on the site and not the otherway round

As opposed to Milton who posted a DNF on one of my caches this weekend, that I know full well he found!

He's past 200 so he's obviously not countng anymore.

DNF

I did?

Did I correct the log?

Which cache was it?

Quick! Quick! This is a numbers game now <_<

January 9, 2006

I had a log on my cache GC8E82 ON 8TH Dec last (Stoterley Hill)

Anyone noticed the anagram of Armchair cacher yet ?

Sort of gives it away I think

Well done the Royles, I never even thought of about that ,I can delete the log now

and let the others who dont use the forum know

Nige

look, for those of us at work, and therefore without any brain to hand - you're going to have to explain!

Armchair Cacher?

1.2k · January 9, 2006

I had the opposite problem a few days ago. I visited some caches which were not the best I'd ever done. I decided I'd be honest when logging them online so I said I'd not enjoyed a couple of them. Nothing rude, just that I personally didn't enjoy them much.

Unfortunately this elicited a tirade of abuse (and I mean ABUSE!) in notes on the caches and in personal e-mails to me. This was followed by my logs being deleted - for perfectly legitimate finds. Fortunately I kept copies of all the relevant logs so the situation could be corrected but I resent having to keep reinstating them.

January 9, 2006

I guess that it is unusual, as usually you see logs of people who never fill in on the site and not the otherway round

As opposed to Milton who posted a DNF on one of my caches this weekend, that I know full well he found!

He's past 200 so he's obviously not countng anymore.

DNF

I did?

Did I correct the log?

Which cache was it?

Quick! Quick! This is a numbers game now

Calm down love it's only a number! [said in best Michael Winner fashion]

Yes you have indeed ammended it.

Cheers

Dave

January 9, 2006

Did our illustrius phantom cacher or wot ever he is send the info for Toot by Billy Twigger!!!!! Toot is a virtual so to keep the log he must have sent the relevant info.

Just a thought.. an he gets about too !!!!!!!!

Moss T

1.7k · January 9, 2006

I had a log on my cache GC8E82 ON 8TH Dec last (Stoterley Hill)

Anyone noticed the anagram of Armchair cacher yet ?

Sort of gives it away I think

Well done the Royles, I never even thought of about that ,I can delete the log now

and let the others who dont use the forum know

Nige

look, for those of us at work, and therefore without any brain to hand - you're going to have to explain!

Armchair Cacher?

ah, yes, my stpidity shines through again! I was thinking the cacher was called armchair cacher, and was looking for an anagram of that.... never mind! I did warn you I was at work, hence...

1.7k · January 9, 2006

I had the opposite problem a few days ago. I visited some caches which were not the best I'd ever done. I decided I'd be honest when logging them online so I said I'd not enjoyed a couple of them. Nothing rude, just that I personally didn't enjoy them much.

Unfortunately this elicited a tirade of abuse (and I mean ABUSE!) in notes on the caches and in personal e-mails to me. This was followed by my logs being deleted - for perfectly legitimate finds. Fortunately I kept copies of all the relevant logs so the situation could be corrected but I resent having to keep reinstating them.

I'd complain to our Mods... sounds a bit unfair to me! <_<

2.5k · January 9, 2006

I had the opposite problem a few days ago. I visited some caches which were not the best I'd ever done. I decided I'd be honest when logging them online so I said I'd not enjoyed a couple of them. Nothing rude, just that I personally didn't enjoy them much.

Unfortunately this elicited a tirade of abuse (and I mean ABUSE!) in notes on the caches and in personal e-mails to me. This was followed by my logs being deleted - for perfectly legitimate finds. Fortunately I kept copies of all the relevant logs so the situation could be corrected but I resent having to keep reinstating them.

Yes personally I would send an email to that very nice mod called Eckington, that lactothingy he can be hard work as I'm sure you know <_<

1.2k · January 9, 2006

Yes personally I would send an email to that very nice mod called Eckington, that lactothingy he can be hard work as I'm sure you know

As Lactothingy said to me the other day "We are not the Log Police". Basically, although the mods can act upon abuse (if it's reported to them), they don't get involved in "logging" issues such as mentioned in this thread.

But at the end of the day it's only a game so what the heck! Life's too short for ongoing angst

January 9, 2006

I am a little confused at why someone wants to log finds in such a way.

2.9k · January 9, 2006

I am a little confused at why someone wants to log finds in such a way.

There have been a few over the years i remember a virtual cacher a while ago all i can assume is that its easier than paying up for a MMORPG.

Of course this is completely different to logging virtual TB's isnt it ?

January 9, 2006

I see that they also found one of mine on the same day. Unfortunately I have since changed the logs out. I did go through but not line by line and only noticed the ones who signed the log but never logged it online.

1.1k · January 9, 2006

I noticed this cacher the other week when he logged a few caches near here. I was a bit dubious of the entries at first, and I was going to start a thread about it but never bothered...

I think if you do log a cache (whether you actually found it or not) you should at least be a bit more forthcoming with your comments.... <_<

January 9, 2006

But I have just looked at the Groundspeak FAQs which read:-

"Geocaching is a relatively new phenomenon. Therefore, the rules are very simple:

1. Take something from the cache

2. Leave something in the cache

3. Write about it in the logbook

Where you place a cache is up to you. "

So equal importance is given to swaps as signing the log!!??

If so I am breaking the "rules" as I rarely swap.

Now this is a good point. You are all complaining about breaking ONE of the three rules.

But a lot break the other two with out so much as a thought.

Rules are rules I have not looked at this before but I have always tried to stick to the rules and the guidelines.

I think we may have posted or two took nothing left nothing logs I am ashamed to say,

and according to the rules we should have swapped something.

So the question is, are those logs on the web site valid, and should TNLN logs be deleted as well? I think if you delete a no log in the book, then you will have to delete any TNLN as well, to be fair.

That is if your going to play by all the rules and not just the ones you deem fit to.

As is stated, equal importance is given to these rules.

I have always hated TNLN logs especially if only one or two words accompany the log like

nice cache TNLN

Yuck

Edited January 9, 2006 by The Spokes

January 9, 2006

So equal importance is given to swaps as signing the log!!??
If so I am breaking the "rules" as I rarely swap.

Now this is a good point. You are all complaining about breaking ONE of the three rules.

But a lot break the other two with out so much as a thought.

Rules are rules I have not looked at this before but I have always tried to stick to the rules and the guidelines.

I think we may have posted or two took nothing left nothing logs I am ashamed to say,

and according to the rules we should have swapped something.

So the question is, are those logs on the web site valid, and should TNLN logs be deleted as well? I think if you delete a no log in the book, then you will have to delete any TNLN as well, to be fair.

That is if your going to play by all the rules and not just the ones you deem fit to.

As is stated, equal importance is given to these rules.

I have always hated TNLN logs especially if only one or two words accompany the log like

nice cache TNLN

Yuck

What I am Typing about is logging on line and not logging the cache log book, in other words telling porkies about your finds, why bother to do it ? as for TNLN I sometimes do that, some caches state REGULAR , but when you find them , they are just matchbox size and the swap you had intended to leave will not fit the box . I sometimes leave stuff in caches without even mentioning it in the log, and take nout out if it's ten for a penny tat. I also like a log that tells you the condition of your cache

Nige

January 9, 2006

1. Take something from the cache
2. Leave something in the cache

1 We always take something from the cache .

We would find it too clumsy to attempt to write in the log book while it is still in the container <_<

2 We then always leave the log book in the container before departing .

January 9, 2006

I have to admit I leave TNLN quite often mainly because I found I was just moving items from one cache to the next like a TB except without the tracking. I do try and write a bit more than a couple of words in the log though.

January 10, 2006

I had a look through this profile a while back - I thought there was something a bit odd about it because the logs were so short and boring but I never cottoned on to the anagram.

I'm not sure of the motivation but it's quite clever really.

It obviously gives someone without much else to occupy their life a little pleasure, so I'm happy to leave the one on our cache for the time being.

3.7k · January 10, 2006

I'm happy to leave the one on our cache for the time being.

This type of "pretend" cache logging crops up from time to time. It's bound to, because of the free nature of the site and lack of verification of finds.

If cache owners delete these logs it would be doing geocachers a service, as they are boring and get in the way of genuine entries.

HH

January 10, 2006

I'm happy to leave the one on our cache for the time being.

This type of "pretend" cache logging crops up from time to time. It's bound to, because of the free nature of the site and lack of verification of finds.

If cache owners delete these logs it would be doing geocachers a service, as they are boring and get in the way of genuine entries.

HH

Log deleted, i did ponder over it quite a bit, then I thought what about all those numbers people out there, it could effect the stats :unsure: and put them down few notches if this pretend cacher started heading toward the 000's :anibad:

Nige

January 10, 2006

...
and according to the rules we should have swapped something.

...

These Rules say nothing about "swapping"; just "removing" and "putting back"! :unsure:

We TNLN types can continue with a clear conscience. :anibad:

January 10, 2006

I'm not sure of the motivation but it's quite clever really.

No, it's not even that. In these days of online anagram sites, working out the alias is only a matter of being able to click on things.

The finds that this creature has “logged” may look randomly selected, but in fact there's a kind of pattern to them. The pattern is concerned with the number of different cache owners targeted, which is statistically unlikely within the areas affected.

The inescapable conclusion is that the “motivation” was -and is - merely to annoy as many people as possible.

Attention seekers - who needs 'em?

-Wlw

3.8k · January 11, 2006

I've deleted the two logs that he found on my caches, both of which where odd at the time, one said didn't know there were canals in this part of the world, the other was extremely close to another cache of mine, and it wasn't logged.

I guess he should have answered my email?

As Wlw has said, the cache finds don't fit in with what an ordinary person would do on a trip, says to me that he doesn't take the time to find out where the nearest caches are, like a normal person would do?

That's if you can call any of us normal

January 11, 2006

I spotted a cacher this week that has logged a multi as a find, but it's highly likely he's only found the first part when comparing the location of other finds that day.

I think it's a genuie error by the newbie, he went with a mate who's not logged this one but has logged others they both found.

I think you need to check things out first to filter out genuie errors, people who found but couldn't paper log from those who cheat.

I've sent the cacher a friend mail to check, if I don't hear will let the cache owner know

The Northumbrians Turn For A Rant

Recommended Posts

Join the conversation