Is Signing The Log On A Find Mandatory?

[adampierson]

One cacher that showed up recently our area posting finds quite a number of finds. What tipped some of us off that something wasn't kosher, was one of the finds he had been reported missing a week before his find. Upon closer inspection, he was posting finds to caches with dates PRIOR to the cache being placed (in some cases over a year). Some of us checked our caches his name didn't appear in ANY of the logsbooks. Some of us e-mailed the person for an explaination, but none ever came. So we deleted his finds.

 

Personally, if there is no signature on a scrap of paper in the cache then that is a no find. Enforcing this is a whole different ballgame and entirely up to the cache owner.

[+Confucius' Cat]

Better yet, wait until you suspect someone "post logging" caches that have been archived with something like, "I found this one a while back but forgot to log it.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?

 

I've gotten a few of these lately. It does create a quandry even though I seldom check for online veracity anyway. (I will check logs that look suspicious) Since the cache is gone, there is no way to confirm or deny.

 

Perhaps GC should fix this so no more find logs would be accepted on archived caches. I don't see the need for find logging on archived caches. If you forgot to log 2 years ago, well, you're just out a smiley.

 

Do you think I should routinely delete these "I forgot a year or two ago" logs?

 

I guess if you are playing the "bogus log on archived caches" game, you need to pick carefully those that were archived because they were missing and not those archived by the owner who removed cache and log.

[+Sagefox]

 

Perhaps GC should fix this so no more find logs would be accepted on archived caches. I don't see the need for find logging on archived caches. If you forgot to log 2 years ago, well, you're just out a smiley.

 

Do you think I should routinely delete these "I forgot a year or two ago" logs?

 

Late logs are not uncommon and I think most of them are ligitimate. I get several per year and don't usually see a problem with them unless I suspect something fishy. I have emailed for some additional verification information on occasion.

 

I don't believe that blocking out archived caches is necessary unless there is evidence that this condition is wide spread.

 

Maybe I'll check late logs to our caches more closely now after reading this topic.

[+Harry Dolphin]

I can think of three caches that I have logged without signing the log. In all cases, I found the cache container strewn across the landscape. Two were muggled by muggles, the other by an animal. For the first two, I signed a paper and put it in the cache container. The other was beyond saving.

I did not log the cache up the tree. I could not get to it = DNF. I did not log the cache completely muggled. It was not there = DNF.

Somewhere, I have a photo of the cache log that the well known multi-thousand-cache finder claims to have found, but did not sign... I shall have to review it.

[+Team PodCacher]

 

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.

 

 

I think you are talking about CCCooperAgency? We interviewed her on Show #38 of our podcasts (all about geocaching).

 

http://www.podcacher.com

[Mushtang]

 

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.

 

 

I think you are talking about CCCooperAgency? We interviewed her on Show #38 of our podcasts (all about geocaching).

 

http://www.podcacher.com

 

I was actually making a joke about a cacher with a similar name as CCCooperAgency, referencing all the rumors that they post bogus finds a lot. Briansnat made the joke first, here, and then I made another joke two posts later (complete with smiley faces and laughing faces).

 

Twice since then people have taken it seriously and have tried to set me straight.

 

I think some folks are too sensitive to CCCacher bashing.

[+Bill & Tammy]

 

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.

 

 

I think you are talking about CCCooperAgency? We interviewed her on Show #38 of our podcasts (all about geocaching).

 

http://www.podcacher.com

 

I was actually making a joke about a cacher with a similar name as CCCooperAgency, referencing all the rumors that they post bogus finds a lot. Briansnat made the joke first, here, and then I made another joke two posts later (complete with smiley faces and laughing faces).

 

Twice since then people have taken it seriously and have tried to set me straight.

 

I think some folks are too sensitive to CCCacher bashing.

 

I may be crazy but I thought "bashing" anyone here is a no-no, qouting guidelines: "Personal Attacks and Flames will not be tolerated. If you want to praise or criticize, give examples as to why it is good or bad, general attacks on a person or idea will not be tolerated. "

[+briansnat]

I may be crazy but I thought "bashing" anyone here is a no-no, qouting guidelines: "Personal Attacks and Flames will not be tolerated. If you want to praise or criticize, give examples as to why it is good or bad, general attacks on a person or idea will not be tolerated. "

 

As I mentioned earlier, I made up the name CCCacher thinking it was fictitional. I was surprised to learn that person does exist.

 

It is interesting to see however how quickly some people made a connection to someone else because the the name had a few C's and the word "cheating" was used.

Edited March 3, 2006 by briansnat

[+Sagefox]

I may be crazy but I thought "bashing" anyone here is a no-no, qouting guidelines: "Personal Attacks and Flames will not be tolerated. If you want to praise or criticize, give examples as to why it is good or bad, general attacks on a person or idea will not be tolerated. "

 

As I mentioned earlier, I made up the name CCCacher thinking it was fictitional. I was surprised to learn that person does exist.

 

It is interesting to see however how quickly some people made a connection someone else because the the name had a few C's and the word "cheating" was used.

 

 

Nice try but I can't buy that.

 

Why, given the constant negative comments regarding a cacher who's id starts with CCC would you "make up" a name that starts with CCC if you did not intend readers to make that connection?

 

If one's intention is to make a general comment without actually pointing to a specfic cacher then wouldn't one carefully avoid words that, unavoidably in this example, lead people to believe they were talking about a specific cacher?

[+briansnat]

If one's intention is to make a general comment without actually pointing to a specfic cacher then wouldn't one carefully avoid words that, unavoidably in this example, lead people to believe they were talking about a specific cacher?

 

No, one should be able to use whatever words he wants and if other people choose to read something else, it only shows their prejudice.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

 

Perhaps GC should fix this so no more find logs would be accepted on archived caches. I don't see the need for find logging on archived caches. If you forgot to log 2 years ago, well, you're just out a smiley.

 

Do you think I should routinely delete these "I forgot a year or two ago" logs?

 

Late logs are not uncommon and I think most of them are ligitimate. I get several per year and don't usually see a problem with them unless I suspect something fishy. I have emailed for some additional verification information on occasion.

 

I don't believe that blocking out archived caches is necessary unless there is evidence that this condition is wide spread.

 

Maybe I'll check late logs to our caches more closely now after reading this topic.

 

I agree with Sagefox. While there are indeed sometimes fraudulent find claims, evidenced in part by online find logs but lacking any entry in the physical logbook, there are plenty of finders who do find the cache and who do sign the log, but who either never log a find online, or wait a year or two or more before doing so. A few of our wilderness caches near our home bear multiple log entries, some from the first days and weeks fo the cache's existence, by finders who never bothered to file an online find report. On a related note, there are often people who first file their log as a team, and then later log their find under their individual account as well -- to me, this is totally legitimate.

 

I can see no need nor justification for blocking late entry of find logs or for blocking logs for archived or disabled caches.

[+johmer79]

I found a cache last weekend where I couldn't get the log out of the container. So instead of not signing it and claiming a find, I just stuck my pencil in the container and tried to scribble something legible. At least the owner knows I'm not lying. :-)

[+Sagefox]

I found a cache last weekend where I couldn't get the log out of the container. So instead of not signing it and claiming a find, I just stuck my pencil in the container and tried to scribble something legible. At least the owner knows I'm not lying. :-)

 

This logsheet condition is very common and your action was creative and appropriate. I've even signed the outside of a container (in pencil).

 

I've never had or never heard of a cache owner questioning or deleting a find when the logsheet is unsignable.

[+geolands]

We were just the opposite. When we first got into caching, we just would find the caches and sign the logs. WE didn't see a point in logging online as well. I did log our DNF, just because there was a chance the cache was missing. (and it was). BUT, I had a few "fellow cachers" make snide remarks because we didn't have icons, virtual logs, high # of finds, etc.

 

I posted a topic on this some time ago, got a few comments, then just quit caching for a while. We didn't feel like going back and virtually logging our finds (late) and then reading about it on the boards. WE do collect geocoins, and I supposed we'll start caching again when we move south next month.

[+budd-rdc]

I have logged archived caches before, in one case, to rescue it from owner's abandonment. I posted photos of the container and the location, so the owner (who's MIA from GC.com) and previous visitors can verify that I actually found it. I signed the log book, even if I was LTF (Last To Find).

 

Since I'm always looking for caches to rescue, locking an archived listing from logging would ruin some fun... but I can shrug it off and continue to find caches AND sign the physical logs.

[+wandererrob]

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 look at it this way. A cache is, at a minimum, a container and a log. Which I seem to recall playing some role in the discontinuation of, and subsequent shift to Waymarking, for locationless and vitual caches.

 

So it seems to me only reasonable that if a log is a key component of a geocache, signing it shold be a key component of claiming the find.

 

Granted some exceptions can and do exist. For example, the log is soaking wet and unsignable. But many will carry an extra log, or maybe just some paper for just such an occurance. Personally I ALWAYS try to leave some physical trace of my having found the cache (sign the log, I'm in the process of making up some cards to leave, or drop a note if I have to)

Edited March 3, 2006 by wandererrob

[+SandyEggoGuy]

I've not signed one log. It was in a mountainous rocky area and was advised to watch out for snakes. The ammo box cached was fitted between two boulders and on top was a shedded snake skin. I was very hesitant to stick my arm down and retrieve the ammo box. I just took a picture and included it with my find and reason for not signing the log.

[+woofiegrrl]

The only time I have failed to sign a log was when I didn't have a pen dropping off a TB at a TB hotel. There was no pen in the cache. (Like others, I now bring my own!) However, I count my "proof" in this case being the TB drop. It was picked up by others, which means that it really was there, and I had taken it out of a cache that I did sign the log for. So I feel pretty much covered in that one case.