What Should I Do

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.)

Okay to cut to the chase, for lack of better words, you lost, the cache owner won, he deleted you find if I remeber correctly. Why do you keep defending yourself if you know you did not win in what you did? Notice I didn't say that what you did was wrong......I did that on purpose because I know what you did, and it did not constitute as a find. At the time you logged the cache as a find, you did not know for sure that you found the cache or a decoy. So at said time, in self reflection, you could not have said you found the cache, because there has to be a log book in the cache to prove that you found the cache. Nuff said.

February 21, 2006

My off-topic question is, "If you don't sign the log book, how do you know you found the cache?" Saying, "I saw a/an (ammo box, tupperware, M&M Tube, whatever) near where my GPSr said the cache was" seems a little dicey to me.

If the container had a big label with the name of the cache on it, that's one thing. Otherwise, what's the point? You might as well just walk around town looking at trash saying, "Yeah, that could be a cache, I think I'll log it."

Having said that, there are worse things than claiming a find without signing a logbook. Of course, if someone can't be trusted to do something as simple as that, I'm not sure I would trust them in other areas.

22k · February 21, 2006

My off-topic question is, "If you don't sign the log book, how do you know you found the cache?" Saying, "I saw a/an (ammo box, tupperware, M&M Tube, whatever) near where my GPSr said the cache was" seems a little dicey to me.

If the container had a big label with the name of the cache on it, that's one thing. Otherwise, what's the point? You might as well just walk around town looking at trash saying, "Yeah, that could be a cache, I think I'll log it."

Having said that, there are worse things than claiming a find without signing a logbook. Of course, if someone can't be trusted to do something as simple as that, I'm not sure I would trust them in other areas.

Careful now, you wouldn't want people not take you seriously.

This is how I approach the whole, 'couldn't sign the log thing'. You post a note as to why you couldn't sign it and maybe the owner offers you the chance to claim a find. Then you decide if you want to take the offer. Not the other way around.

I post a note as to why I couldn't sign it and maybe the owner offers me the chance to claim a find. I don't take it.

That's about it.

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.)

Okay to cut to the chase, for lack of better words, you lost, the cache owner won, he deleted you find if I remeber correctly. Why do you keep defending yourself if you know you did not win in what you did? Notice I didn't say that what you did was wrong......I did that on purpose because I know what you did, and it did not constitute as a find. At the time you logged the cache as a find, you did not know for sure that you found the cache or a decoy. So at said time, in self reflection, you could not have said you found the cache, because there has to be a log book in the cache to prove that you found the cache. Nuff said.

Hello? What are you talking about? No one deleted any log of mine. But I'll address a few of the irrelevant things you said. What's a decoy? Something placed by the owner of a cache in the general area? If I found something hidden by the cache owner where he said the cache was, I'm going to think I found the cache, especially my first time out. You don't think not signing a log is fair. I don't think leaving decoys is fair. "Crafty behavor" breeds "crafty behavior." But it wasn't a decoy. And I should've pointed this out before, but I didn't so I'll point it out now. In addition to being nothing important to worry about in regard to a light hearted game, this verification thing is greatly overrated. A signature in a log book proves nothing. (And BRTango says I just have to see the log, so there.) Even if you found my signature in one of your logs, you don't know how it got there. If you really think people are out here cheating (to win absolutely NOTHING), you might as well consider the possibility that someone else found your cache and signed both his and my "name" while I was out finding other caches and signing my and his name. If you're really thinking dishonesty is a big part of what's going on in this game, you've lost the game. (Paranoia is a mind killer.)

February 21, 2006

While in Chattanooga Tn my caching buddy and I came across a cache that was under a huge boulder. We could get our hand the and could feel the cache, we could even see the cache but it was impossible to get out. I took a pic of the location and of the hole where the cache was located. We logged it as a find.

I think if someone is having trouble reaching the cache first they need to provide you with a picture of where the cache is located and also edit their log. Also maybe you could go check on it and make sure it has not been moved.

7.2k · February 21, 2006

Don't take a cache owner not deleting your log as validation for your inappropriate log. Many folks are loath to delete a log for fear of doing something wrong. That doesn't make what you did right.

Me? As a cache owner I will not allow a bogus log to stand.

5.3k · February 21, 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.

For some one whos says

Don't confuse with me with someone who cares

you are sure acting like you care.

There are caches that include decoys, I own a cache like that unless you open the container and sign the log book you have no way of knowing that you have found the cache.

Using your same twisted reality, you could go find the first part of a multi leg cache and claim you found the cache.

Just because you see a container the looks like it contains a cache does it does not mean you found the cache. I found a tupperware container while looking for a cache once, it was not the cache, it was some ones litter,. The tupperware container with the cache was 15 feet away.

So if you did not find and sign the log, you did not find the cache. Just becasue you are the only person that thinks you found the cache does not make it so.

OF course you line in your owned world of reality, so in your mind you think you found the cache

3.9k · February 21, 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??. . .

Two or three points here, and likely they have each already been made by other posters:

1) This is not a find. This is, however, an example of a very typical DNF. If this were a find, then... never mind... I could give some really silly examples of what else woudl then be a find, but will refrain from doing so; you get the idea. Briefly, seeing a cache is NOT the same thing as finding it! You must physicalyl oepn the cache container and sign the log to claim a find!

2) I do have some concerns about your cache. It seems to have a Terrain rating of 2. If this were an adult cacher, and she/he reported that the cache was "a bit out of reach", then you may need to take a hard look at whether you need to change the Terrain rating, perhaps to 3.5 or 4. Something may be wrong with your curent Terrain rating.

February 21, 2006

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!

Not really... they simply worded, "Took McToy, Left same McToy," a little differently! :laughing:

Now, just for fun:

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!"

Do we have to start talking about the verbal skills of various Presidents? If so, I think we could fill a whole forum with Shrub's flubs!

Happy Caching!

Lori V.

TeamVilla5

2.2k · February 21, 2006

Do we have to start talking about the verbal skills of various Presidents? If so, I think we could fill a whole forum with Shrub's flubs!

Let's not. :laughing:

February 21, 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??. . .

2) I do have some concerns about your cache. It seems to have a Terrain rating of 2. If this were an adult cacher, and she/he reported that the cache was "a bit out of reach", then you may need to take a hard look at whether you need to change the Terrain rating, perhaps to 3.5 or 4. Something may be wrong with your curent Terrain rating.

As I stated eairler in this thread-here is a description of the cache, and my reasoning for the terrain rating-If I need to chage it I will.

THe cahce is on a big steal ramada type thing located right next to the road (kinda like an oversised bus stop but its not). You can walk on a sidewalk right to the base of the structure from several parking spaces within 0.25miles. I took advatage of the supporting I beams to conceal the cache (it is placed between two of them right where they converge. It is way up high and on the opposite side of the beams from where a searcher is likely to be standing. You have to stand on a wall and lean out to the side to retrieve the container from the other side of the 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 also figured that it only deserved a terrain 2 because if it where at ground level it would be wheelchair acessable and only 0.25mile from parking which would be a 1 or 1.5. I then figured that climbing up on the wall is simple and esssentially just like standing on a chair to hang a picture at your house, no real 'skills' are required.

3.9k · February 21, 2006

2) I do have some concerns about your cache. It seems to have a Terrain rating of 2. If this were an adult cacher, and she/he reported that the cache was "a bit out of reach", then you may need to take a hard look at whether you need to change the Terrain rating, perhaps to 3.5 or 4. Something may be wrong with your curent Terrain rating.

As I stated eairler in this thread-here is a description of the cache, and my reasoning for the terrain rating-If I need to chage it I will.

The cache is on a big steel ramada-type thing located right next to the road (kinda like an oversised bus stop but its not). You can walk on a sidewalk right to the base of the structure from several parking spaces within 0.25miles. I took advatage of the supporting I beams to conceal the cache (it is placed between two of them right where they converge. It is way up high and on the opposite side of the beams from where a searcher is likely to be standing. You have to stand on a wall and lean out to the side to retrieve the container from the other side of the 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 also figured that it only deserved a terrain 2 because if it where at ground level it would be wheelchair acessable and only 0.25mile from parking which would be a 1 or 1.5. I then figured that climbing up on the wall is simple and esssentially just like standing on a chair to hang a picture at your house, no real 'skills' are required.

Thank you for this additional information, and I apologize if I missed reading it earlier in the thread! To me, if ANY climbing (i.e., onto a wall or balustrade, etc.) is required, and if a reach over or even higher is then required after the climb, then the cache would automatically merit a Terrain rating of at least 3.5 or 4.

I am a bit concerned about your logic wherein you write:

"I also figured that it only deserved a terrain 2 because if it where at ground level it would be wheelchair acessable and only 0.25mile from parking"

To me, and this may be only me, this type or reasoning is quite erroneous, as the cache is NOT at ground level. Period.

What follows is my opinion only: I suggest that you may wish to change the Terrain rating to be fair to future seekers and to prevent any claims -- iun case of injuries -- due to wrong terrain rating. In fact, seen in the light in which I see it now, I can speculate that perhaps the seeker who eventually claimed a "find" was truly misled by, and puzzled by, the Terrain rating of 2, and thus may have (erroneously, in my mind) claimed a find thinking: "Well, I tried everything that a Terrain 2 cache would demand, and could not reach the cache, so this must qualify as a find!"

Edited February 21, 2006 by Vinny & Sue Team

February 21, 2006

Our rating system must be different out here in Arizona. Last sunday we used 4 wheel drive to get to this 2.5 cache GCTD53. 1.5 sounds like a good rating for the cache in question to me.

Oh yeah........I got dirty........the truck got dirty.........and as an employer...........I think it's a DNF.

Edited February 21, 2006 by Shoebugs

February 21, 2006

In fact, seen in the light in which I see it now, I can speculate that perhaps the seeker who eventually claimed a "find" was truly misled by, and puzzled by, the Terrain rating of 2, and thus may have (erroneously, in my mind) claimed a find thinking: "Well, I tried everything that a Terrain 2 cache would demand, and could not reach the cache, so this must qualify as a find!"

Our rating system must be different out here in Arizona. Last sunday we used 4 wheel drive to get to this 2.5 cache GCTD53. 1.5 sounds like a good rating for the cache in question to me.

I just bumped the rating up to 2.5 and may move up more later but I agree with Shoebugs that around here out terrain ratings are different than the rest of the country. One of my other caches is a steep but short hike up a rocky hill and I have it rated 3 for terrain, which is in line with other similar caches in the area, but I guess that I like comparing apples to oranges and Urban Micro to an Ammo Can in the desert.

February 21, 2006

Not signing log book, case in point: Over the weekend I "retrieved" a frozen cache but could not open it. I could have replaced the cache and logged a smiley. Instead I gave it to a friend and asked him to open it, he managed to get it open and there was nothing inside! Needless to say it was *not* the cache. I have also done several caches with decoys. So just because you "see" the cache doesn't mean you really did.

I have logged exactly *one* cache without signing the (wet) log, I was ignorant at the time, I am keeping the smiley for that one but will not do it again.

IMHO: Smiley = Signed log book.

February 21, 2006

While in Chattanooga Tn my caching buddy and I came across a cache that was under a huge boulder. We could get our hand the and could feel the cache, we could even see the cache but it was impossible to get out. I took a pic of the location and of the hole where the cache was located. We logged it as a find.
I think if someone is having trouble reaching the cache first they need to provide you with a picture of where the cache is located and also edit their log. Also maybe you could go check on it and make sure it has not been moved.

Great example of a DNF logged as a find. I did a cache once that required you to climb up a cliff face about 20 feet. I don't like heigths so I logged a DNF and came back with someone who could retrieve it for me.

Also I don't buy "frozen in the ice, logged as a find" logs either.

BTW, if the cache was "impossible to get out" did anyone ever log a find after you??? I bet they did. I bet someone got it out. Could be wrong...

2.1k · February 21, 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??

I would ask them to alter the log and change it to a note...if they don't then I would delete it.

Jamie

February 21, 2006

Yeah....me too. And don't cave in when it comes to your ratings. Some people pay close attention to those and may choose to pass that one by because of the rating. Hang in there.....you are not out of line.

February 21, 2006

Sometimes when there's really nothing special about the cache, you can log a find without opening it up. You know, say, on those 1/1 caches.

However, let's say the cache has a lock on it and part of "finding" the cache is getting the combo or key to the cache to get in. In this case just seeing the cache isn't a "find" because part of the challenge presented is to figure out how to get into it.

I did one like this the other day. The cache had a combo lock on it. We saw the cache, but we didn't log a find until we actually opened it. In fact, finding the cache was easy. Getting into it was the challenge. Where would the fun have been if we just logged a find without actually opening it?

Sometimes when you get to a cache, you may not know if the cache hider set up a challenge for getting to the cache and opening it. So, when in doubt, open the cache, then take a picture or sign the paper log.

People generally aren't going to audit the paper log, but for some caches, logging a find without opening it, is like getting 1,000,000 peice jigsaw puzzle, putting together the border, and saying, "yay! we did the puzzle." What's the point in that?

- bones

3.9k · February 21, 2006

Sue and I once went after an all-day 5/5 multi-cache series up in NJ. The final stage was in a narrow space under an abandoned RR bridge, high over a river gorge, and we did not have my climbing equipment with us. We did our best, but could not reach the container, even with some jury-rigged retrieval gear. AFter learning of our quest and the outcome, the cache owner kindly offered us a a courtesy "find" after all our efforts. We politely declined his nice offer, and instead filed a really fun DNF, filled with lots of gory details of the challenges we had faced. Then, 40 days later, we made the return trip of 278 miles (one-way) back to NJ, this time with the right gear stuffed into two duffel bags, and snagged the cache four minutes after hiking into ground zero, signed the log and claimed a real find. To me, that is the difference between seeing the cache and a real find.

February 21, 2006

Bravo....Vinny& Sue!!!...That's What it's all about

February 22, 2006

Sometimes when there's really nothing special about the cache, you can log a find without opening it up. You know, say, on those 1/1 caches.

- bones

Where is the logic in this? :cute:

February 22, 2006

Where is the logic in this?

My logic is simply this. This type of cache was not meant to be tricky to get into. If it's, say, in a peanut butter jar, and the lid gets stuck so that you can't open it, the opening of the jar is not meant to be a challenge. You did your best, but were blocked by unforseen circumstances. In this case, why not log it as a find, and put a note on the web site indicating what happend? I't s 1/1, so it's clearly not meant to have such a challenge.

It's sorta like the case where you put together a jigsaw puzzle and there's a piece missing. Do you say you did the puzzle, or not? I suggest we can show a little grace and claim that the puzzle was done.

It comes down to each person's view on things. Do you view that the rule that you must sign the log applies in *every* circumstance, or do you view that there can be some circumstances that allow for exceptions.

On the other hand, if you're not sure if the cache hider meant it to be tricky in some way or not, assume it's supposed to be tricky and log the find only if you can get into the cache.

I agree that people primarily should be opening the caches that they log as a find. Others have given plenty of reasons why one might miss out by not doing this.

- bones

February 22, 2006

You know, the more of these threads I see, the more I'm inclined to never log another find on the web site again. I mean, who cares- really? Especially when it turns into holy crusades for so many people.

Maybe I'll just sign logbooks and stop logging any finds on geocaching.com.

7.2k · February 22, 2006

Maybe I'll just sign logbooks and stop logging any finds on geocaching.com.

Plenty of people do just that and that's perfectly acceptable. Just know that it's polite to email, or otherwise contact, the cache owners of those you enjoyed. Also, help out the cache owner by alerting them of problems.

February 22, 2006

Koikeeper and I just did a run of Nano caches. I must have added strips to 20% of them because the cache owners were told the logs were full but did not replace them in over 2 weeks. On one the thin strip was wet, falling apart, and unsignable .... and unreadable also ..... and I had no replacement strip with me ..... and YES we logged it as found. In principle .... maybe we were wrong ..... but if you can not maintain your cache within a reasonable time after being told it needs maintenance .... that's not my fault. I found it, I held it in my hand, I'm logging it! I carry replacement log sheets with me for just this reason .... but ran out due to poor owner maintenance. :cute: ImpalaBob

7.2k · February 22, 2006

Do you view that the rule that you must sign the log applies in *every* circumstance, or do you view that there can be some circumstances that allow for exceptions.

Sure there are exceptions. Here is a partial list of my exceptions:

The log is missing.
You attempted to sign, but the logbook was too wet.
There is absolutely no room to sign the logbook on any page anywhere.

I should note, never have the above conditions ever occured at any time, on any of our caches. True, a logbook or two has been filled up, but everyone found an empty spot on an already used page. I mean, come on, you can sign a nano log, but you can't find a spot in a full-sized log? Puhleeze! In other words, there have been no exceptions.

...and even the above list is very generous. A finder could easily use a part of the cache page to sign and drop in the cache, or other scrap of paper. Hopefully they would email me detailing the problem so I could go out and repair the cache and find their scrap of paper.

BTW, we've done just that ourselves when we've less-that-well-maintained caches.

So, in order to claim that you've found the cache you must leave proof in the cache. That's our rules.

Now, why are the rules so cut and dry? Because I don't want to argue "How hard is too hard before I have to sign the log?" "How wet is too wet?" "How much room do you need to sign the logbook before it's considered too full to log?"

That list could go on and on. Just where do you draw the line? These forums are filled with arguments over the gray areas. Just make it black and white, and most of those arguments go away.

I tell you where I draw the line: you may claim a find when you sign the logbook.

3.9k · February 22, 2006

Do you view that the rule that you must sign the log applies in *every* circumstance, or do you view that there can be some circumstances that allow for exceptions.

Sure there are exceptions. Here is a partial list of my exceptions:

The log is missing.

You attempted to sign, but the logbook was too wet.

There is absolutely no room to sign the logbook on any page anywhere.

I should note, never have the above conditions ever occured at any time, on any of our caches. True, a logbook or two has been filled up, but everyone found an empty spot on an already used page. I mean, come on, you can sign a nano log, but you can't find a spot in a full-sized log? Puhleeze! In other words, there have been no exceptions.

...and even the above list is very generous. A finder could easily use a part of the cache page to sign and drop in the cache, or other scrap of paper...

...So, in order to claim that you've found the cache you must leave proof in the cache. That's our rules.

Now, why are the rules so cut and dry? Because I don't want to argue "How hard is too hard before I have to sign the log?" "How wet is too wet?" "How much room do you need to sign the logbook before it's considered too full to log?"

That list could go on and on. Just where do you draw the line? These forums are filled with arguments over the gray areas. Just make it black and white, and most of those arguments go away.

I tell you where I draw the line: you may claim a find when you sign the logbook.

I agree. We have found a number of caches where the logbook was nothing more than a soggy mass of pulp, but in each case, we have left a piece of paper bearing our name and log entry; in some cases (i.e., really extreme caches) we have even taken a foto of one of us holding the cache container, the soggy-pulpy- mass-once-known-as-a-logbook, and our new "log sheet". In a number cases, where practical, we have provied a replacement logbook.

February 22, 2006

Sure there are exceptions. Here is a partial list of my exceptions:

The log is missing.

You attempted to sign, but the logbook was too wet.

There is absolutely no room to sign the logbook on any page anywhere.

These are usually the only ways I will log a cache without leaving explicit proof in the cache container or first contacting the owner. Another cache I ran across was haphazardly placed as part of an event, and the maintenance was awful. I found the cache, and it was "inside" a ziplock baggie that had two sides open. Inside the baggie were two centipedes and a cache paper that looked like it was in the process of being recycled by mother nature. So I reported it, and I got credit for the find...then the cache was immediately archived.

I have run across some interesting DNF issues that I would like to share as well.

I saw a log by one cacher, who will remain nameless, that said the following (i'm paraphrasing); "This was a 1/1 cache, and I looked for five minutes and couldn't find it. But since I'm so great, it must not be there...so I'm logging it as a find anyway." And as far as I know, the owner never deleted the log!

We were caching a few weeks ago along a rails-to-trails, and there was a cache that was up in a tree, with a terrain rating of either 1.5 or 2, I can't remember. My counterpart climbed the tree and signed the log with no problems. When we got back and logged the cache, we noticed that someone made a log consisting of "LOL that's funny" and posted a pic of the cache up in the tree. So it's a spoiler, AND they didn't actually find it.

Finally, we have the most recent incident, where my friend placed a 7-stage multi cache out in the woods. The potential FTFer found the first two stages and half of the third (therefore giving him half of the coords). We think after that, he skipped the rest of the stages by simply walking a longitude line until he found the cache (which he claims was two hours of walking around in the woods until he stumbled upon it). He signed the log, but I don't think this is a find either, since he didn't do the cache the way it was supposed to be done.

I can't wait to finally submit my first cache so I can thwart the cheaters. :-)

2.3k · February 22, 2006

[quote

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

ARGGHHHH!!! Stop feeding this troll!!!

February 22, 2006

When I find a log book that is full, I poke a small hole in a page and mention it in the online log.

proof that I was there and left my mark.

works for no pencil logs too.

Edited February 22, 2006 by olbluesguy

8k · February 22, 2006

You know, the more of these threads I see, the more I'm inclined to never log another find on the web site again. I mean, who cares- really? Especially when it turns into holy crusades for so many people.

Maybe I'll just sign logbooks and stop logging any finds on geocaching.com.

Hell no! Look how people get into a tizzy over counting a find when you don't sign the log. They can't tell if you're ahead of them in the standings now - your find count is no longer accurate. Now you want to find a cache (legitimately since you signed the log :laughing: ) and not log it online. How can they tell if they're ahead of you now. Nooooooooo!

February 22, 2006

I tell you where I draw the line: you may claim a find when you sign the logbook.

Completely agree. We've had both sides of that decision: as a finder, we almost logged a DNF on a 1/1 cache.

Not because we couldn't find it - we did. We *saw* it, I had my fingers on it...but it was STUCK under its camouflage that had frozen into place. It took quite a bit of wiggling to get that cache out of its hiding place - but if I hadn't been able to do so, we were completely prepared to log a DNF.

We've logged notes (NOT "found it") for caches that were too wet to sign, and would've obviously been pointless to leave another piece of paper in to get wet - even on the rare occasion we've had paper with us.

On the owner side, we've hosted events that people have shown up for and had to leave five or ten minutes after they came - but they signed the log, they get the smiley. We've had people completely bypass the first stage of a 3* difficulty cache we've placed by using their cache-fu to find the end-stage. I've not deleted their logs - they signed the book, they get the smiley.

The same will happen when we place our next difficult cache - if they manage to skip all the stuff that makes it difficult, and sign the book, the find will stand.

February 22, 2006

You know, the more of these threads I see, the more I'm inclined to never log another find on the web site again. I mean, who cares- really? Especially when it turns into holy crusades for so many people.

Maybe I'll just sign logbooks and stop logging any finds on geocaching.com.

Hell no! Look how people get into a tizzy over counting a find when you don't sign the log. They can't tell if you're ahead of them in the standings now - your find count is no longer accurate. Now you want to find a cache (legitimately since you signed the log ) and not log it online. How can they tell if they're ahead of you now. Nooooooooo!

The very heart of the problem, to my mind. People are measuring portions of anatomy by cache finds, and that's just plain stupid.

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

Join the conversation