Is Signing The Log On A Find Mandatory?

February 28, 2006

It would never occur to me to log a cache found if I did not sign the log book. Am I thinking wrong here? I could have a "few" more finds playing the game that way. What do YOU think? duck

2.5k · February 28, 2006

I always sign the paper and online logs. If you want t drop one, drop the online one, because if you do it the other way you might be considered a cheat. The paper log let's other cachers know you play fair.

That's my 2 cents, but others may feel differently.

February 28, 2006

Well, since you asked...

The way I play the game, no sign means no find. Seeing the container is not enough. The container must be retrieved and opened. However, if the log book/sheet is unsignable due to being too wet, etc., it is acceptable to place a new log book/sheet/piece of paper in the cache and sign that.

1.4k · February 28, 2006

I agree that the paper log is proof you didn't cheat, but I've seen a couple of caches where the log was so damaged (water, etc.) that I couldn't sign the log and in one case the pen was missing (I bring a pen now though, so no excuse anymore on there, and on that one I actually came back with a pen the next day before online logging it so I was "honest"). In case the cache gets archived I don't want to lose the smiley for a reason that's the owner's fault so I still logged it.

22k · February 28, 2006

If you can't sign the log, document it the best you can, picture, whatever and run it past the owner.

If you don't want to sign the log you could end up having your on-line log deleted.

1.8k · February 28, 2006

Many people that find Benchmarks simply take a picture of the mark. I suppose you could do the same for caches.

February 28, 2006

I always signe the log is possible. I have had two encounters where I was unable to sign the log. One, the log was missing and I had no replacement, the other was wet and I couldn't signed, but I did try. I do document every cache with a photograph in case there is ever a question.

38.2k · February 28, 2006

It would never occur to me to log a cache found if I did not sign the log book. Am I thinking wrong here? I could have a "few" more finds playing the game that way. What do YOU think? duck

I think you are right. There are a lot of geocachers whose definition of a "find" doesn't include finding a cache. There is an entire thread devoted to this. You will find that some prominent geocachers with thousands of "finds" are mentioned quite often in this thread, particularly one with a 5 digit "find" count. Reading that thread, you learn quickly how some of them reached their incredible numbers.

Edited February 28, 2006 by briansnat

1.1k · February 28, 2006

Only left one log unsigned, it was a micro and the log was so wet and jammed in so tight I think it would have destroyed it. Here's my log:

February 13, 2005 by Cpt.Blackbeard (19 found)

Second find of the day. Cache was full of water, poured out all I could but was afraid removing the log would destroy it, so I left it unsigned. TNLN, rehid in same location but repositioned it to shield it from the weather, hopefully it will dry out eventually. Thanks for the find!.

GCDE56

February 28, 2006

I'm not talking about situations where the log was wet or missing. The log was there, roasty toasty and unsigned. They logged it online as a find. I kind of have a problem with that.

5.3k · February 28, 2006

I'm not talking about situations where the log was wet or missing. The log was there, roasty toasty and unsigned. They logged it online as a find. I kind of have a problem with that.

Is it possible that these cachers log online with a different name than they sign the log with?

(example: individual names in the log book and a team name online, or versa vice)

February 28, 2006

From the cache listing guidelines

The cache owner will assume all responsibility of their cache listings.

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.

If you are certain they didn't sign the log (make sure they don't use a different name online vs. in the log book) then you have the right to remove their find.

38.2k · February 28, 2006

Who cares? Cheating on your finds is like cheating at solitare. It doesn't effect me.

Yeah, the above quote is not from this thread, but you will soon see it here.

In reality lying about finds can affect others. One geocacher I know drove 100 miles RT in a fruitless search for a cache because someone logged a fake find. Many people won't search for a cache that hasn't been found in a while. A "found it" log tells the community that the cache is there. People who are watching it may set out in search of it based on that log. They could well look longer and harder because "It has to be here, JoeCacher found it yesterday". It wastes their time and that isn't right.

Also, most cache owners use the logs to determine the need for maintenance. If there are a few DNFs, then CCCacher comes along and lies about a find, the cache owner may put off a needed maintenance visit.

1.8k · February 28, 2006

then CCCacher comes along and lies about a find

Hmm, I wonder who that could be ... :smile:

3.9k · February 28, 2006

then CCCacher comes along and lies about a find

Hmm, I wonder who that could be ...

Isn't CCCacher a group of cachers that run around all over the country separate from each other and all post bogus finds using the same name? That's what I heard.

:smile: :wub: :lol: :wub:

Edited February 28, 2006 by Mushtang

3.8k · February 28, 2006

Isn't CCCacher a group of cachers that run around all over the country separate from each other and all post bogus finds using the same name? That's what I heard.

No, Lynn is one person who just loves to cache and loves to travel to cache and see her friends. It's a shame the bandwagon keeps taking on people, it's overloaded as it is. :blink:

To the OP, here is my feeling on it.

February 28, 2006

Also, most cache owners use the logs to determine the need for maintenance. If there are a few DNFs, then CCCacher comes along and lies about a find, the cache owner may put off a needed maintenance visit.

That is a pretty provocative accusation, do you sir have any proof that you can present to prove it?

Edited February 28, 2006 by Bill & Tammy

22k · February 28, 2006

Here we go again.

:blink:

February 28, 2006

That is a pretty provocative accusation, do you sir have any proof that you can present to prove it?

I do. Send me an email and I will gladly share it with you. But lets keep it out of this thread please.

Getting back to the OP's question. Nothing is mandatory based on the way the site is set up. It's truly up to the cache owner whether they will allow a find. I've seen it go both ways. Ethically, signing the cache log to claim a find is the way this game is played. If we stray to far from that, I fear the game is in trouble.

February 28, 2006

Here we go again.

fun ain't it?, sorry just couldn't let that one pass, especially since I am meeting the individual in question at an event next month.

If you all haven't noticed most of the stuff I say is really only half joking anyway. You all get way too serious about a game sometimes.

Edited February 28, 2006 by Bill & Tammy

22k · February 28, 2006

Here we go again.

fun ain't it?, sorry just couldn't let that one pass, especially since I am meeting the individual in question at an event next month.

If you all haven't noticed most of the stuff I say is really only half joking anyway. You all get way too serious about a game sometimes.

All this popcorn is making somebody rich. :blink:

February 28, 2006

Here we go again.

fun ain't it?, sorry just couldn't let that one pass, especially since I am meeting the individual in question at an event next month.

If you all haven't noticed most of the stuff I say is really only half joking anyway. You all get way too serious about a game sometimes.

All this popcorn is making somebody rich.

Not to mention the virtual sodas, popcorn always make me thirsty... :::: oh crud, there goes the off-topic buzzer again::::

5.7k · February 28, 2006

It would never occur to me to log a cache found if I did not sign the log book. Am I thinking wrong here? I could have a "few" more finds playing the game that way. What do YOU think? duck

I don't understand how you can have more finds than you have found. How does that work? :blink:

February 28, 2006

*** must keep socks in the drawer where they belong, must not chew them to shreds ***

Edited February 28, 2006 by QuantumLeaper

2.1k · February 28, 2006

Sorry, Erwin must have been at the computer while I was away, and he forgot to log out :blink:

I've had a couple that I haven't actually managed to sign the paper log. Mostly if I've forgotten a pen on a micro or something along those lines though. I'm always honest about it in my logs in any case.

For me, the find is about a personal satisfaction of having been done with the cache. This generally means having retrieved the cache, or what's left of it. The owner of the cache is free to delete my log if they feel it was inappropriate, or didn't meet what they would call a find.

Having your name in the log is not a guaranty that you were actually there. It only assures the cache owner that someone was there that put your name in the book. We had a cacher around here not long ago, who was accused of cheating, the contention was that they were having another cacher write their names in the log for them with out them actually having been there. Some people around here are sure they were cheating, some people aren't, still more couldn't care less.

What it comes down to, is if its your cache, its your rules. If signing the log is mandatory on your caches, and they didn't sign the log, then go ahead and delete the log.

2.2k · February 28, 2006

I can think of four occasions where I did not sign the physical log yet still counted the cache as a find.

My first was a micro and we didn't have a pen. I made a big production of documenting it in the online log and emailing the cache owner with a description of the container, location and the log itself so he would know I found it.

The second time was another micro and again no pen. This time I only posted a Note that I found it and didn't count it as a find until I returned a few days later with a pen.

By the third time I did the "micro without a pen" thing I realized no one really cared so I logged it as a Find and said in the log that I didn't sign the log but mentioned if the cache owner wanted me to describe the hide I would do so to prove we found it.

The fourth time was a cache that had moisture problems since the summer. We found the container and opened it but everything inside was frozen solid and we couldn't get anything out. Still counts as a find in my books and I logged it as such, along with a "Needs Maintenance" log.

I guess for me it is a Find if I physically handle the container. If there is a tough hide, say in a really high location or some other hard to access place, just seeing the container without retrieving it doesn't count in my books.

That being said, if any of the cache owners had an issue with me not signing the physical log book, I woud have abided by their decision and removed the find. Then, depending on how nice they were, I would either go back and properly sign or just never hunt any of their caches again. :blink:

1.4k · February 28, 2006

Here we go again.

fun ain't it?, sorry just couldn't let that one pass, especially since I am meeting the individual in question at an event next month.

If you all haven't noticed most of the stuff I say is really only half joking anyway. You all get way too serious about a game sometimes.

There are people who do take this game seriously, waking up early, mapping the most efficient route, and caching well into the night to maximize the number of finds. I'm sure many non-forum posters admire such dedication to the sport, and they'll appreciate a non-controversial presentation of such achievements. :blink:

Edited February 28, 2006 by budd-rdc

8.9k · February 28, 2006

As you can see it is a personal way of thinking for many people. For me, I can count on my right-hand index finger the number of times I claimed a find and didn't sign the log. I had the log in my hands and was reading the names, but the security guys were approaching, and I pocketed the film-canister micro and pretended to be interested in the cemetery markings. They came by and said the cemetery was closing. I paid my respects privately and surreptitiously replaced the micro, forgetting to sign the log.

That's the only one that had a log that I didn't sign.

But again, this is a very personal choice, and people have very heated opinions on the matter. I hope this topic stays civil...

5.3k · February 28, 2006

I just got an e-mail from someone that found one of my caches, they said a person with over 2500 finds that had posted a find just a day or two before them never signed the log. Once a do a check i may delete the find.

5.7k · February 28, 2006

I online log every single cache that I find whether or not I have signed the logbook. If there is a logbook present, I sign it. :blink: :blink:

38.2k · February 28, 2006

Since we're confessing, I can only recall one time I didn't sign the logbook. The cache was soaked and the logbook was a wadded mass of pulp. I added a business card and logged it as a find.

There were a few times when I found a cache and there was no pencil. One time I signed using the lit end of a cigar. A couple of others, I used a stick dipped in mud.

Edited February 28, 2006 by briansnat

38.2k · February 28, 2006

Also, most cache owners use the logs to determine the need for maintenance. If there are a few DNFs, then CCCacher comes along and lies about a find, the cache owner may put off a needed maintenance visit.

That is a pretty provocative accusation, do you sir have any proof that you can present to prove it?

Oops, I thought it was a ficticious name. I had no idea CCCacher was a real person.

My intention was not to accuse the real CCCacher of cheating. Same for JoeCacher who apparently is also a real person. :blink: Sorry CC and Joe if you are reading this.

Edited February 28, 2006 by briansnat

5.2k · February 28, 2006

There was only one cache I found where I didn't sign the log. It was a 1/2 mile, very steep hike to the top of a small ridge near a highway rest stop. I got there and realized I forgot a pen. I did have a small travel bug so I left that in the cache as proof I was there. When the next finder took the travel bug a few days later and logged it, I feel that proved I was there. However if I'm ever in the area again I will probably hike it again and sign the logsheet.

March 1, 2006

A few days ago I ran across a cache (ammo box) that was frozen in its hiding place. The lid was also frozen shut. I could not remove it from the hiding place, but after several minutes of pulling managed to get the lid off.

Luckily I had already found the cache, but I'm not sure what I would have done if it was my first time.

March 1, 2006

There are a couple of finds recently I have had where signing the log would have damaged them I think. I was caching in sub freezing temps and the logs had become damp previously and were little ice balls (they were micros of course). Probably a good rule of thumb is that if you think it's going to harm the cache you may want to rethink going for the signature.

2.1k · March 1, 2006

I just got an e-mail from someone that found one of my caches, they said a person with over 2500 finds that had posted a find just a day or two before them never signed the log. Once a do a check i may delete the find.

Hopefully after an email request to the finder asking for alternate proof. A good current description of the area, something significant. Signing the log doesn't have to be the only proof of a visit, but proof none-the-less should be provided.

I wouldn't hesitate to delete a find if the answer came back squirly. (No, not THAT Skwerl)

March 1, 2006

Okay, it's simple. You sign the log when you find the cache. That just verifies that you were actually there.

What's to kep a person who just wants to puff up his numbers to just go to the web site, pick a cache, and claim that they found it?

March 1, 2006

Okay, it's simple. You sign the log when you find the cache. That just verifies that you were actually there.

What's to keep a person who just wants to puff up his numbers to just go to the web site, pick a cache, and claim that they found it?

38.2k · March 1, 2006

What's to kep a person who just wants to puff up his numbers to just go to the web site, pick a cache, and claim that they found it?

Nothing. It happens all the time.

7.2k · March 1, 2006

What's to keep a person who just wants to puff up his numbers to just go to the web site, pick a cache, and claim that they found it?

Better yet, wait until you suspect someone "post logging" caches that have been archived with something like, "I found this one a while back but forgot to log it. TFTC." Who's to say they weren't there?

March 1, 2006

Wonder if I should log a DNF if I drive by but there are too many muggles??? Totally just kidding ....find it, sign it, log it....seems pretty simple in concept huh? Until I read this thread :P

3.2k · March 1, 2006

[Hopefully after an email request to the finder asking for alternate proof. A good current description of the area, something significant. Signing the log doesn't have to be the only proof of a visit, but proof none-the-less should be provided.

I wouldn't hesitate to delete a find if the answer came back squirly. (No, not THAT Skwerl)

Wait a sec...I have no problem with possibly accepting alternate proof if it is offered up front and with permission. Why would the burden be on the owner to ASK for the alternate proof? None was requested, owner did not find name, there decision to delete. No need for further investigation.

With the exception of a log being destroyed (wet, full, etc), and then you would send an email to the owner anyway, no signed log, no found.

3.9k · March 1, 2006

Isn't CCCacher a group of cachers that run around all over the country separate from each other and all post bogus finds using the same name? That's what I heard.

No, Lynn is one person who just loves to cache and loves to travel to cache and see her friends. It's a shame the bandwagon keeps taking on people, it's overloaded as it is.

I never said Lynn was a group of anything. I was talking about a completely different cacher name. :smile:

March 1, 2006

I always sign the log book for a find but sometimes get lazy on a return trip to drop/retrieve a TB. I always log online though.

And I always sign the logbook when I find a duckm cache! Oh wait, those sneaky caches frequently elude me!

2.1k · March 1, 2006

Okay, it's simple. You sign the log when you find the cache. That just verifies that you were actually there.

Nope, it doesn't.

I've signed a log for a cache I hadn't yet found. I've heard of people being accused of having someone else write there names in log books for them (and no, we aren't talking about a team account).

What's to keep a person who just wants to puff up his numbers to just go to the web site, pick a cache, and claim that they found it?

Nothing. Well, nothing except their conscience.

3k · March 1, 2006

find ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fnd)

v. found, (found) find·ing, finds

v. tr.

To come upon, often by accident; meet with.

To come upon or discover by searching or making an effort: found the leak in the pipe.

To discover or ascertain through observation, experience, or study: found a solution; find the product of two numbers; found that it didn't really matter.

To perceive to be, after experience or consideration: found the gadget surprisingly useful; found the book entertaining.

To experience or feel: found comfort in her smile.

To recover (something lost): found her keys.

We've run across a number of caches where even when you think you've found it, you haven't. Just visiting the spot is not a find. Finding the cache is a find. Frequently, there are decoy caches to highten the fun. If you want to waymark, go Waymarking. If you want to go caching, find the cache and sign in as per the guidelines set out for caching, it's that simple. I don't recall ever reading in the introduction, guidelines or rules that simple observation ever counts as a cache. I can't believe this has even become a point of contention. If you don't sign our logs you should expect to have your entries erased :smile:

March 1, 2006

While I am only on my 6 find I find it sad and disterbing that anyone would pretend to find a cache only so he could add it to his list of finds. In my opinion part of the fun is opening the log and seeing whos been there and when. Thats just me. :smile:

March 1, 2006

If I can't sign the logbook, it's not a find. For instance, I have "seen" a cache 30 feet up in a tree that I just cannot get to because I'm too freaking fat. Seeing the container is not a enough to log this cache as a find, as anyone can just look up and see the thing. Obviously the hider wanted finder to have to climb the tree to retrieve the cache (hence the terrain being a 4 rather than a 1).

1.7k · March 1, 2006

Mandatory logging in a purely volitional activity=oxymoron

"You are required to volunteer 10 community service hours" "This free sample will only cost 3 dollars"

Quite different from what is proper protocol for the on line log. Sign for a find.

One local cacher of prodigious numbers of finds. logs, photos the log, downloads the track and photos the area--there is never a doubt that he has been where he says he is, but I suspect that is because at sometime or another someone operating under a misaprehension suggested that he did otherwise.

I was first to find on http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...15-c90db51e814a , yestrday but the signature was sloppy so the second and third to find couldn't read it, so now if you all act fast you can claim first to find and no one will know the difference except us. :anibad:

Edited March 1, 2006 by Packanack

3.8k · March 2, 2006

Wonder if I should log a DNF if I drive by but there are too many muggles??? Totally just kidding ....find it, sign it, log it....seems pretty simple in concept huh? Until I read this thread

That's what happened to me here. I'll just go back, but even though I was within 10 feet, and could see the cache, my name isn't in the logbook. Logged a note because I did find the container, but to me it's not a find on this site until my name is recorded.

:anibad:

Is Signing The Log On A Find Mandatory?

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