What Should I Do

February 20, 2006

Someone just logged one of my caches with this log

We found it, but it was just a bit out of reach, so couldn't sign log.

I see two problems with this. First he didnt sign the log, and second his log is a big hint which I dont want. I already encrypted it but should I delete it??

Also, the encryption doesnt seem to work on the main page-only on the view this log page. Whats up with that??

1.4k · February 20, 2006

found it-didnt find it is a fun to read thread right along the lines of the problem you have. If it bothers you send the owner an email and politely ask them to change the find to a note if not delete the log.

February 20, 2006

Someone just logged one of my caches with this log

We found it, but it was just a bit out of reach, so couldn't sign log.

I see two problems with this. First he didnt sign the log, and second his log is a big hint which I dont want. I already encrypted it but should I delete it??

Also, the encryption doesnt seem to work on the main page-only on the view this log page. Whats up with that??

If there is a way to email this person, I'd give him a chance or two to fix the problem. If he doesn't respond, then delete.

If not email then maybe a posted note to him.

3.2k · February 20, 2006

Yes, I would do a polite email asking him to make it a note or DNF and delete the obvious spoiler. Give it a week and delete it if he does not respond.

7.2k · February 20, 2006

Me, I'd delete it. In your mind it contains a spoiler that you don't want there. Waiting for the cacher to change the log only increases the likelyhood of others viewing the spoiler.

Just delete the log and send a polite email detailing why you deleted the log and issue an invitation to log the cache with the proper log-type.

As with SBA's, a deleted log is not the end of the world, nor is it the insult some try to make it out to be.

February 20, 2006

Why is it out of reach? Do you have to be 6 feet tall to retrieve it? Is there something wrong at the cache to prevent an average cacher from reaching it? It's a 2 star cache so it shouldn't be hard to get at, but I don't see anything in the description about a height requirement. Just curious to know the details before making a judgement.

5.3k · February 20, 2006

I would delet the log and tell them enter a new one with the DNF and without the spoiler.

The cache

February 20, 2006

I'm CoyoteRed and JohnnyVegas on this one.

It doesn't matter if one has to be tall or have long arms to grab the cache. There are lots of caches that require special equipment to access them. Just because I can see one with binoculars doesn't mean I should log a find. If it takes climbing gear or other impliments to get the cache, then that's the only way I'm going to log it. If it's out of my reach for any reason, it's a dnf until I figure out a way.

Edited February 20, 2006 by StarshipTrooper

2.2k · February 20, 2006

I have more of an issue with not signing the log than I do with the spoiler in the log. Just reading some of the other logs, and there are plenty of spoilers in there as well:

"Just what do you think you are doing up there?" ... "my son had it in his hand, when I surprised him" -- that pretty well gives away that the cache is in a high location.

"Then things started looking up" -- perhaps a veiled hint or just an oversight? Kind of like when people look for a cache in the woods and say "Nice hide, it had us stumped".

I mean it's one thing to not sign a log because you didn't have a pen for a micro, or the cache contents were frozen in the container or the log book is soaked or whatever, but to log a find just because you saw the container seems a little wrong to me. If I had been the seeker, I would have just posted it as a note.

In the end, it's your cache, do what you think is right.

February 20, 2006

Just a note from the other side, I didn't sign the log for the first cache I found, but I logged the find at the website. I didn't know that was a big deal at the time and I didn't feel like crawling around in the dirt underneath a low foot-bridge. But I saw the ammo box. As far as I'm concerned, I found it.

February 20, 2006

ghs, you didn't.

7.2k · February 20, 2006

As far as I'm concerned, I found it.

Sometimes part of the hunt is the retreival of the cache. Sometimes you will come across decoys.

While most folks seem to be slack in auditing the logbooks it is there for a reason.

February 20, 2006

Well, you're free to your opinion wiseye, however irrelevant it is, but there's more than one side to the issue. (It's a two-way street.) :laughing: My position on the issue stands. I'm the guy who logged it as a find. My log's still there. My goal of having fun going out to look for something hidden in the woods is still intact. (I even mentioned that I didn't sign the log at the cache in the website log. The owner of the cache apparently doesn't have a problem.)

And "auditing log books" and there being any specific reason for the log book being there other than as part of what's supposed to be just a *fun* activity sure doesn't seem consistent with this being a "light hearted game." The website log is there for some reason too. But there are at least two people who signed the cache log for the one cache I hid but yet didn't log it on the internet. That's there business. I realize that isn't quite the same thing and if there was some big deal here, i.e., there was something serious about geocaching, I'd worry about that difference. But as it is, it's not a big deal. There's no big prize someone is going to falsely win by saying they found a cache they didn't. And there's no big prize they're going to miss because they didn't register a find on the internet.

Edited February 20, 2006 by ghs

February 20, 2006

Just a note from the other side, I didn't sign the log for the first cache I found, but I logged the find at the website. I didn't know that was a big deal at the time and I didn't feel like crawling around in the dirt underneath a low foot-bridge. But I saw the ammo box. As far as I'm concerned, I found it.

I've seen a few that I couldn't sign the log. I saw them, I didn't find them. :laughing:

February 20, 2006

I've seen a few that I couldn't sign the log. I saw them, I didn't find them.

Well, religious arguments don't do anything worthwhile for forums, or much else. I'm not going to argue about what the word "find" means. :laughing:

Edited February 20, 2006 by ghs

22k · February 20, 2006

Well, you're free to your opinion wiseye, however irrelevant it is, but there's more than one side to the issue. (It's a two-way street.) My position on the issue stands. I'm the guy who logged it as a find. My log's still there. My goal of having fun going out to look for something hidden in the woods is still intact. (I even mentioned that I didn't sign the log at the cache in the website log. The owner of the cache apparently doesn't have a problem.)

And "auditing log books" and there being any specific reason for the log book being there other than as part of what's supposed to be just a *fun* activity sure doesn't seem consistent with this being a "light hearted game." The website log is there for some reason too. But there are at least two people who signed the cache log for the one cache I hid but yet didn't log it on the internet. That's there business. I realize that isn't quite the same thing and if there was some big deal here, i.e., there was something serious about geocaching, I'd worry about that difference. But as it is, it's not a big deal. There's no big prize someone is going to falsely win by saying they found a cache they didn't. And there's no big prize they're going to miss because they didn't register a find on the internet.

Well since I am free to my opinion, I call it lazy and/or cheating.

February 20, 2006

Well since I am free to my opinion, I call it lazy and/or cheating.

Don't confuse with me with someone who cares, but since it's also my opinion, I'll say that some people are apparently taking a light hearted game a tad too seriously.

22k · February 20, 2006

Oh, I know it's light hearted and fun and I don't have a personal problem with nearly whatever you do. You want to log caches you never even seen or touched then you go right ahead. Just don't be surprised when somebody takes issue with your conduct and disagrees with it.

There is a point to this game. So when a cacher asks what to do about someone "doing their own thing" I'm going to call it like I see it.

Are you going to have a problem with the owner deleting your log? Do you feel like you got away with something? Did you find the cache? Is that what your heart is telling you?

February 20, 2006

Don't confuse with me with someone who cares, but since it's also my opinion, I'll say that some people are apparently taking a light hearted game a tad too seriously.

It is a light hearted game, but like other games there are some rules. Signing the log has been a core element to geocaching from the very start. If you are going to throw out whatever rules you don't personally care to follow, that's fine; but then it isn't really quite Geocaching anymore...

:laughing:

Copied directly from the Geocaching.com FAQ's:

What are the rules in Geocaching?

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

Edited February 20, 2006 by Team Snorkasaurus

22k · February 20, 2006

Don't confuse with me with someone who cares, but since it's also my opinion, I'll say that some people are apparently taking a light hearted game a tad too seriously.

It is a light hearted game, but like other games there are some rules. Signing the log has been a core element to geocaching from the very start. If you are going to throw out whatever rules you don't personally care to follow, that's fine; but then it isn't really quite Geocaching anymore...

You said it much better than I did. Back to the shadows for me.

February 20, 2006

It is a light hearted game, but like other games there are some rules. Signing the log has been a core element to geocaching from the very start. If you are going to throw out whatever rules you don't personally care to follow, that's fine; but then it isn't really quite Geocaching anymore...

I was actually waiting for someone to say that. :laughing: Rules made up by the players works against the game. I'm no more "throwing out a rule" than you are. If it was a "core element" and an actual rule, there'd be something official from geocaching.com about it being a requirement. (If there is, then someone should have quoted that from the get-go. I didn't see any indication that signing the log at the cache is any more of a "core element" than logging the find at the website. It appears to be just something you're used to and taking for granted.) If individual geocache hiders have specific rules regarding their cache, they should put them in the cache description. When I see such "rules," I generally, sometimes grudgingly, follow them, in spite of the fact that I think some of the cache descriptions I've seen violate some rules that I think should exist...but apparently don't. If things were as obvious as some of you seem to think they are, this thread wouldn't exist.

Edited February 20, 2006 by ghs

7.2k · February 20, 2006

If things were as obvious as some of you seem to think they are, this thread wouldn't exist.

Well, it might not be obvious, but it's there. The trouble is folks simply don't read. I've oft quoted the guidelines in regards to logging caches. In fact, it is part of an owner's responsibility for maintaining a cache.

The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements.

How's that?

Now, just how are you supposed to verify a log is not bogus? How do you prove you visited the cache? True, some folks take a picture or whatever, but the mechanism for verifying a visit is the logbook. That is, you have to sign the logbook.

Also note that codeword caches are not allowed. That could be a way to verify a visit, but it's not allowed? Why? Because the core mechanism is the logbook. Remember, a logbook is required in order for the cache to be published.

Granted, the site (wisely) doesn't say you have to sign the logbook, but I take you back to the requirement for the cache owner to verify the online logs. Groundspeak leaves it up to you, the cache owner, to determine what is bogus and what is not, but they also make you provide a logbook for your visitors to use.

I'm sure if the site did say you had to sign the logbook there would be debates about just what constitutes "signing."

So, there you have it. Two plus two equals ... ?

February 20, 2006

What you quoted from geocaching.com appears to leave it up to the cache owner to define "bogus" (and you did say that). Simply not signing the log at the cache does not a priori define bogus. But if the *cache owner* (not some person I meet in forum unrelated to the specific cache :laughing: ) wants to define that web-log as "bogus," that's his/her business. And as you point out, they don't explicitly say signing the log is a requirement.

Given that it's a light hearted game and there's no big prize to win, I really think this verification issue is utter nonsense (I couldn't care less whether people who say they've found my cache actually did), but if the owner of the cache I found really needs the verification, I can tell him precisely where it is. (I wouldn't know any better if I had crawled under there, got my work clothes all muddy, and opened the silly box.)

Edited February 20, 2006 by ghs

22k · February 20, 2006

What you quoted from geocaching.com appears to leave it up to the cache owner to define "bogus" (and you did say that).

Well, there you go WE2001, you can delete the log with a clear conscience.

February 20, 2006

...If it was a "core element" and an actual rule, there'd be something official from geocaching.com about it being a requirement.

There is, the rules are posted on Geocaching.com's web-site. The sign-the-log rule is not "made up by the players" it is an official rule. Read the site and you can see for yourself... Actually, there is a lot of interesting information available on the web-site besides just the rules: the games history, suggestions about caches, variations of the game, etc... But yes, there are official rules listed on the web-site which include signing the log.

:laughing:

February 20, 2006

...If it was a "core element" and an actual rule, there'd be something official from geocaching.com about it being a requirement.

There is, the rules are posted on Geocaching.com's web-site. The sign-the-log rule is not "made up by the players" it is an official rule. Read the site and you can see for yourself... Actually, there is a lot of interesting information available on the web-site besides just the rules: the games history, suggestions about caches, variations of the game, etc... But yes, there are official rules listed on the web-site which include signing the log.

Well, in between this excitement, I was back at geocaching.com. I didn't really see anything that wasn't already said above. The word "rule" has different contexts. I didn't see them as a requirement relating to an a priori definition of "bogus" or cheating. They're more like rules to follow if you want to maximize your fun geocaching.

February 20, 2006

Why is it out of reach? Do you have to be 6 feet tall to retrieve it? Is there something wrong at the cache to prevent an average cacher from reaching it? It's a 2 star cache so it shouldn't be hard to get at, but I don't see anything in the description about a height requirement. Just curious to know the details before making a judgement.

It is held magnetically to the roof of a ramada type thing up high where you have to stand on a wall and lean out to the side to retrieve the container from the other side of a big I beam. I am 5'5" and am able to reach the cache. I figure I dont need to post a hight requirement because I am of 'average hight'.

I have more of an issue with not signing the log than I do with the spoiler in the log. Just reading some of the other logs, and there are plenty of spoilers in there as well:

[removed quotes to save space, feel free to look at the quoted post]

I too was more worried about the DNF v Found than the spoiler but since I already had to contact the owner/delete log I brought it up. Also it was a little more direct of a spoiler than the two you quoted, although the log with the 'flatland box' and 'looking up' words had me thinking for a while but then I decided to leave them. At least for this cache, right now my rule (subject to change) seams to be that if the spoiler is a creative part of their log or a simple and subtle oversight then I'll leave it but a more direct one needs changed.

BTW I emailed the cacher and she changed the log type and wording no problem. She did point out that I should add something to point out that the cache might not be accessable to all and then I looked at that cache page and noticed that somehow I had forgotten the no wheelchair attribute, which I have now added.

February 20, 2006

Well, in between this excitement, I was back at geocaching.com. I didn't really see anything that wasn't already said above. The word "rule" has different contexts. I didn't see them as a requirement relating to an a priori definition of "bogus" or cheating. They're more like rules to follow if you want to maximize your fun geocaching.

Just a quicky note to state that I am in no way trying to accuse anyone of cheating, if that is how I came across please know that it isn't my intent. I am just sharing my understanding of the "rules" and how I play the game. I would not consider logging a find for a cache if I haven't found it AND signed the log. If another geocacher logs one of my caches as a find without signing the log would I delete their post? Yes, absolutely! I appreciate that other folks play the game their own way, that is part of the fun of the game; however, I believe the rules are intended to be followed. If others disagree, no worries!

Happy Trails!

:laughing:

February 20, 2006

Well, in between this excitement, I was back at geocaching.com. I didn't really see anything that wasn't already said above. The word "rule" has different contexts. I didn't see them as a requirement relating to an a priori definition of "bogus" or cheating. They're more like rules to follow if you want to maximize your fun geocaching.
Just a quicky note to state that I am in no way trying to accuse anyone of cheating, if that is how I came across please know that it isn't my intent. I am just sharing my understanding of the "rules" and how I play the game. I would not consider logging a find for a cache if I haven't found it AND signed the log. If another geocacher logs one of my caches as a find without signing the log would I delete their post? Yes, absolutely! I appreciate that other folks play the game their own way, that is part of the fun of the game; however, I believe the rules are intended to be followed. If others disagree, no worries!

Happy Trails!

Well, I don't have a problem with anything you said. And I didn't mean to imply that you said anything about cheating. Sorry for any misimplication by a general comment. I think it's just a matter of what the word "rule" means. (In other threads, I keep seeing the word "guideline" thrown around a lot.) As I said, I don't see the big deal about the verification thing, but if others do that's up to them in regard to caches they hide and find. But the verification via the log thing is a little interesting from another perspective. One guy in my area, in addition to signing the log (actually, he doesn't say anything about THAT) insists that you email him a code that you find at the top of his caches' log sheets or he'll delete the log at the website. Now, how come I don't get to be "lazy" for not crawling under a bridge to sign a log (primarilly because I didn't want to look like a geocacher when I went back to work) but he gets to be too "lazy" to actually go look at his cache log to see if someone actually found the cache????

(I personally think that geocaching.com might need to be a little more explicit, both in regard to geocache finders and geocache hiders. If the people who are supposed to define things explicitly would, the rest of us wouldn't have to define them implicitly.)

Now, there. Let's see if I typed all that for once without needing to use the edit feature. (I doubt it.) (I was right...crud.)

Edited February 20, 2006 by ghs

10.1k · February 20, 2006

I saw a very nice cache, about twenty feet up a tree. Great location! I was unable to climb the tree: DNF. Oh, well.

Someone said they had my cache in their hands, but didn't like the people in the parking lot, so he put it back without signing the log. I had to delete that one. Sorry, didn't sign the log = DNF (with certain exceptions.)

Them's the rules. You don't like the rules, find a different game to play.

And do not get me started on webcams!

2k · February 21, 2006

Early in my caching adventures I found? a cache while on the road working. I could even touch the cache, but it needed a magnet to retrieve. The cache owner had not specified that any special tool was required for retreival, and even if he had I would not have had one packed in my suitcase. I did log the cache but also stated that if he felt that I had not found the cache to his satisfaction to delete my log that I would not be offended. He left it, but I could see that it could have easily ben deleted under the strict interpretation of finding a cache.

February 21, 2006

Copied directly from the Geocaching.com FAQ's:
What are the rules in Geocaching?

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

Interstingly enough, rules 1 and 2 imply that TNLN is a DNF! :laughing:

February 21, 2006

Well, in between this excitement, I was back at geocaching.com. I didn't really see anything that wasn't already said above. The word "rule" has different contexts. I didn't see them as a requirement relating to an a priori definition of "bogus" or cheating. They're more like rules to follow if you want to maximize your fun geocaching.

Why is this somehow remeniscent of the verbal sparring of that famous verbalist, Slick Willie? "I did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinski!"

:laughing:

JohnTee

February 21, 2006

I just glanced though the websites photos of people holding geocaches, anyone have a good program I can log 5,000 quick finds? Well, I did see the cache :laughing:

February 21, 2006

Them's the rules. You don't like the rules, find a different game to play.

They're they go again, making stuff up and calling it a rule.

February 21, 2006

I just glanced though the websites photos of people holding geocaches, anyone have a good program I can log 5,000 quick finds? Well, I did see the cache

Well, if you don't see a distinction between seeing a visual replica of a cache and the cache itself, that's between you and the cache owner. Good luck! (Might be a good plan for really cold days.)

February 21, 2006

Copied directly from the Geocaching.com FAQ's:
What are the rules in Geocaching?

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

Interstingly enough, rules 1 and 2 imply that TNLN is a DNF!

Which is why they're probably not RULES in terms of the context of "requirement."

22k · February 21, 2006

(I personally think that geocaching.com might need to be a little more explicit, both in regard to geocache finders and geocache hiders. If the people who are supposed to define things explicitly would, the rest of us wouldn't have to define them implicitly.)

I think they have done pretty well in knowing when they need to be a little more explicit with the rules. It usually happens when someone wants to push the extremes of definition. Logging a lot of fakes find or logging a virtual TB through caches the logger never visited tends to get noticed. They leave the onesy-twoesy stuff to the discretion of the cache owner, but I'm pretty sure they'll back up the owner who deletes a find with no logbook signed far more often than a logger who wants to claim a find without signing.

As far as I’m concerned a finder who wants to justify a find based on only the interpretation of the rules, or lack there of, doesn’t impress me enough to join their side. And they don’t impress me as a geocacher either.

In fact I think the best thing to do is stop feeding the troll.

February 21, 2006

As far as I’m concerned a finder who wants to justify a find based on only the interpretation of the rules, or lack there of, doesn’t impress me enough to join their side. And they don’t impress me as a geocacher either.

The same goes for trying to disqualify a find based on an interpretation! Who's trying to justfiy a find to anyone but himself? (My going there and finding it means I found it. The log on the vast wasteland known as the internet means nothing.) Who's trying to convince who of anything or trying to get them to "join their side"? I don't have a side. (Not that I feel the need to justify anything to anybody, but I've signed every log since that one. I don't do it because of rules. I do it because doing it is part of the fun. Not doing it is like going to climb Mt. Everest, getting to within 3 feet of the top, and then going, "Oh to heck with it, I'm going home." Rules don't have anything to do with it.) What part of "Just a note from the other side" was confusing? How did you get so arrogant to think that I go geocaching to impress you or anybody as a geocacher. (I don't try to impress anybody...ever...in regard to anything!)

February 21, 2006

doesn’t impress me enough to join their side. And they don’t impress me as a geocacher either.

When was the requirement that you needed to be impressed added? I must have missed that one. :laughing:

In all seriousness, I find this whole thing kind of faintly amusing. People are getting their knickers in a twist over silliness like this, and then someone comes along and says that they're not impressed with someone "as a geocacher". Do you really think that anyone will take you seriously if you make pronouncements like that?

Enjoy the game, don't pass judgement on the other people playing it.

22k · February 21, 2006

doesn’t impress me enough to join their side. And they don’t impress me as a geocacher either.

When was the requirement that you needed to be impressed added? I must have missed that one.

In all seriousness, I find this whole thing kind of faintly amusing. People are getting their knickers in a twist over silliness like this, and then someone comes along and says that they're not impressed with someone "as a geocacher". Do you really think that anyone will take you seriously if you make pronouncements like that?

Enjoy the game, don't pass judgement on the other people playing it.

I'm pretty sure I meant to pass judgment. Lemme check, Yep I did. Does it matter? I hope so. If people lie, cheat or steal. Yeah, they don't impress me in more ways than a geocacher. Is that okay?

February 21, 2006

Some folks don't impress me as Geocachers either. especialy ones that claim finds that they never found, but that's just my opinion.Not a requirement

February 21, 2006

Just to toss out my 2cents worth... I think seeing a cache and logging it as a find (without signing the logbook) is the same as visiting a virtual cache. No problem logging it as a find, so long you do so in the right area. As virtuals are no longer considered caches so much as they are waymarks, then that is where you should be logging the find.

The cache is only a cache because of the logbook, so in order to claim a find you must at least see the log book.

February 21, 2006

First off, what's with all the petty bickering going on here? Are you all so childish that you have to force your opinion on other people, and accuse them of cheating if they don't agree with you? Knock it off and grow up.

Now to answer the thread owners question. A few months ago I found a micro, but was unable to sign it. I knew for a fact that was the cache, but the cache is inaccessable for someone who is less that 5'5, I'm 5'3. So what did I do? I went home and e-mailed the cache owner with the location of the cache, the type of container, and then explained to him why I didn't sign the log. A little bit later he e-mailed me back and told me I could log it. A few week later, I went back with another cacher (who is 5'10) and he made the grab. Good thing, since whoever did it prior to him, put it up even higher.

If the person is posting spoiler info, personally I would delete it, and e-mail the person letting him know that. If the cache was made to be a hard to get to cache (climbing, or being slightly tall), then I would delete it. If the cache is just another average cache meant for all to enjoy, what's the harm? If the person saw the container and has a real reason as to why they didn't sign it, then why not?

Ultimately it's your decision, and having not found the said cache, nor knowing what type of caches you hide, I can't really suggest what do to. But with the exception of the spoiler, I don't see any real harm done.

February 21, 2006

I guess it's like playing golf with my brother. He has a habit of not counting all his strokes. We're not in any kind of tournament and there is no money on the line so he's really not hurting anyone either. On the other hand, even when he does tell the truth I'll always be a little bit skeptical of his score because I know this about him.

3.8k · February 21, 2006

I guess it's like playing golf with my brother. He has a habit of not counting all his strokes. We're not in any kind of tournament and there is no money on the line so he's really not hurting anyone either. On the other hand, even when he does tell the truth I'll always be a little bit skeptical of his score because I know this about him.

I hear the new guidelines will address these multiple logs. I got a sneak peek at them.

:laughing:

22k · February 21, 2006

First off, what's with all the petty bickering going on here? Are you all so childish that you have to force your opinion on other people, and accuse them of cheating if they don't agree with you? Knock it off and grow up.

I have never accused anyone of cheating because they don't agree with me. And as for all the petty bickering you need to surf the forums more often. , But I would like to know how to force my opinion on people, that could come in handy.

Unavailable caches are unavailable. How you want to address the situation is between you and the owner. However you do not have much of a position when the owner decides that since you did not sign the log you do not get to claim a find. No matter how you want to slice the rules.

Edited February 21, 2006 by BlueDeuce

February 21, 2006

How you want to address the situation is between you and the owner. However you do not have much of a position when the owner decides that since you did not sign the log you do not get to claim a find. No matter how you want to slice the rules.

Just curious. I hope I don't regret asking. Where did I say anything contradicting that? (THAT was never an issue.) The owner can delete my log if he doesn't like how little hair I have. It's his page. Did you see the part where I said I mentioned in the website log that I didn't sign the log and the part where the actual *owner* didn't seem to object? I think I mentioned at least once that I thought it was an issue between the owner and the cache finder, not the cache finder and a bunch of people on some forum on the internet with an opinion.

22k · February 21, 2006

How you want to address the situation is between you and the owner. However you do not have much of a position when the owner decides that since you did not sign the log you do not get to claim a find. No matter how you want to slice the rules.

Just curious. I hope I don't regret asking. Where did I say anything contradicting that? (THAT was never an issue.) The owner can delete my log if he doesn't like how little hair I have. It's his page. Did you see the part where I said I mentioned in the website log that I didn't sign the log and the part where the actual *owner* didn't seem to object? I think I mentioned at least once that I thought it was an issue between the owner and the cache finder, not the cache finder and a bunch of people on some forum on the internet with an opinion.

Nothing wrong with that question and No, I never thought you, and I mean just you, wanted to go against the owner's decision. We do differ on what constitutes a find in a very (in my opinion) serious manner. As for the discussion I thought the owner brought this to the forum to be discussed between a bunch of people on some forum on the internet with an opinion, not the finder.

February 21, 2006

And all I did in regard to the initial post was mention that his particular finder wasn't the only one in that situation, in case he cared. If the "OP" had not already basically gotten the answer to the question he asked, I would have said, "It's your cache and your webpage. If you don't like a log, delete it. It doesn't really matter why you don't like it." (What ensued afterwards was not my intent, but I expected it. I've been to forums before.)

What Should I Do

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment