Cachers Who Don't Sign The Log, Do We Let Them Keep Their Finds Or

June 14, 2006

I have a problem there is a cacher in Moncton. NB, Canada who is logging caches that they haven't signed. It's not a few missed it is systemic. Do I allow this person to keep their log or not. I have talked to the cacher with no positive results. He suggested that the caches were "Garbage" and not worth signing. There was no evidence that he was at the cache at all.

Misha

June 14, 2006

If he didn't sign it he didn't find it. Delete his logs.

June 14, 2006

That is some interesting logic. They aren't worth signing (which requires almost no effort) but they are worth logging (which takes considerably more effort)?? I'd delete them.

9.3k · June 14, 2006

That's up to you, Brother. It's your cache. I've got one hide that can be rather frightening to reach. One player got to within a few feet of the container, (close enough to see it), but couldn't bring himself to go any farther. Since I felt almost the exact level of fear while placing the cache, I can empathise with him. He claimed a "find", and I let it stand. If this had happened on one of my easy to, get to ground based caches, I would've questioned it.

June 14, 2006

I don't know, I guess I would trash their entry. But who is it hurting? Not us (geocachers) the person wants to look like hes a great geocacher Let HIm. Maybe someday, when he realy want's to find some, he'll never know how many he actually found. LET THE DORKS BE DORKS. Give it some time, then TRASH.....

June 14, 2006

I don't know, I guess I would trash their entry. But who is it hurting? Not us (geocachers) the person wants to look like hes a great geocacher Let HIm. Maybe someday, when he realy want's to find some, he'll never know how many he actually found. LET THE DORKS BE DORKS. Give it some time, then TRASH.....

While I agree with the spirit of this, the guidelines for placing a cache are pretty clear that it is the cache owners responsibility to remove bogus logs from the site:

Cache Maintenance

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.

1.7k · June 14, 2006

No sign, no find.

Delete.

It cheapens the finds of those who were there to see fake finds on the cache. If he cant be bothered to sign the log because it is so "lame", then he shouldnt log online either.

June 14, 2006

DELETE

2.2k · June 14, 2006

i'm not easily annoyed but if someone slagged off one of my caches without a decent reason or positive criticism then i'd probably delete anyway, just too blinking rude!

there are times i will let logs stand when no signature but in general delete.

June 14, 2006

No sign = did not find = delete. That’s the rule of the geocaching game

There are exceptions, of course.

The log could explain why there is no sign (pen forgotten, but here is a photo of the logbook). Or it is such a great story/an eloquent masterpiece/a funny anecdote/a flattering compliment, that it contributes to the cache page.

Zilvervloot.

Edited June 14, 2006 by Zilvervloot

June 14, 2006

Maybe he signed the cache container :laughing:

Andy

6.7k · June 14, 2006

Maybe he signed the cache container

Andy

EGAD! Would somebody really do that? :laughing:

7.2k · June 14, 2006

I have talked to the cacher with no positive results. He suggested that the caches were "Garbage" and not worth signing. There was no evidence that he was at the cache at all.

Considering you did get feedback from the person who logged your cache online and admitted to purposely not signing the logbook, if it were me, I'd delete the log without further comment.

Look, I don't care who you are, if you don't sign the logbook (unless it's some very, very special circumstances) you don't get the opportunity to claim the find online. We challenged a very prominent cacher in the past on claiming an unearned find and we will continue to challenge anyone who does so.

It's your responsibility to delete bogus logs.

6.7k · June 14, 2006

A touchy subject and one that has been the source of some angst lately.

It depends on what your definition of "found" is!

For the purpose of claiming a find, getting a smilie and having the log accepted as legitimate on geocaching.com and by the community at large the cacher needs to sign the log.

For the purpose of geocaching, by which I mean going out and finding something, if they see it they've found it.

There is a lot of room between those two positions, and you as the owner get to decide who logs your cache and how.

Since I rarely log caches online it's irrelevant to me whether the owner agrees that I have found the cache, but if I was logging for numbers I would sign the log.

My personal approach is to read the logs on my caches to enjoy them and to keep up with maintenance needs.

I have never and wouldn't dream of ever matching online logs to signatures. In fact I can't ever remember even reading the paper log in one of my caches. Others are at the opposite extereme.

In this case you get to decide.

Edited June 14, 2006 by TheAlabamaRambler

7.2k · June 14, 2006

In this case you get to decide.

You missed something.

The logbook is there, primarily I think, as a form of verification. Sure, you could spot a cache and privately call it a find. But if you're going to claim the find, you need to be able to back it up. It's not rocket science nor a matter of National Security, but getting your name in the logbook is the primary way of securing that form of verification.

Why? If there wasn't some way of cache owners verifying finds then anyone could claim a find on any cache anywhere. Whose to say they didn't find it? You? Me? As much as numbers are meaningless today, they would be much more so by orders of magnitude if there was no way to verify a find.

Considering part of a cache owner's responsibility is to delete bogus logs, I think it a failure to be a responsible cache owner to not periodically reconcile cache logs.

Additionally, if you never read the cache logs you miss out on the logs of those who never log them online.

I don't have to tell you that playing fast and loose with the basic concepts of the hobby can be frowned upon. I'm surprised you're back here advocating just that.

2.6k · June 14, 2006

He suggested that the caches were "Garbage" and not worth signing.

What?! I'd delete his find so fast, his head would spin around like Linda Blair. I bet he doesn't realize you can do that.

Teach him to keep a civil tongue in his head.

7.3k · June 14, 2006

Just one more DELETE on the heap. As a one time incident, I'd assume a simple error, as a pattern - begone o false smiley.

June 14, 2006

It's great you all are supporting "Misha" when none of you know the whole story.. and I find it funny he would bring it to the main public forums to try and gain support for his loosing battle in his local association.

Nor do you all know the exact issue which this particular incident has occured, Nor do you all know this Misha character like we all do... or his caches.

Some being swamp ridden micros in the middle of heavy woods which he places and "blames" on other cachers (and that's just my opinion)

it's geocaching, not geologging - you find the cache to find what is hidden, not to sign a log inside

Nuff said

Edited June 14, 2006 by FunkyNassau

June 14, 2006

That's up to you, Brother. It's your cache. I've got one hide that can be rather frightening to reach. One player got to within a few feet of the container, (close enough to see it), but couldn't bring himself to go any farther. Since I felt almost the exact level of fear while placing the cache, I can empathise with him. He claimed a "find", and I let it stand. If this had happened on one of my easy to, get to ground based caches, I would've questioned it.

Doesn't that devalue the find for those who overcame their fear and completed the difficult task?

It is akin to running a marathon, dropping out because of exhaustion, but in sight of the finish line, and still being allowed to claim a finish.

6.7k · June 14, 2006

it's geocaching, not geologging - you find the cache to find what is hidden, not to sign a log inside

Ditto

From CR:

I'm surprised you're back here advocating just that.

I am not advocating either way, just acknowledging options and differences in style.

I don't often log caches, whether I signed the log or not.

I don't log a cache, coin or TB I haven't seen, though I have logged caches I haven't signed.

I don't monitor my cache's paper logs, anyone can log my caches if their concionce allows them to do so.

Is all that irresponsible, unfair, cheating? I don't think so, but it's how I play my game.

Regardless, to advocate my practices I would have to recommend them - I don't... I just state how I play the game.

I never try to get folks to do it my way, and always try to tell folks that they have choices.

6.7k · June 14, 2006

Doesn't that devalue the find for those who overcame their fear and completed the difficult task?

I don't get this devaluation thing.

Who sets the value of a find?

If anyone it could only be the finder.

I hear folks saying things like this, that micros devalue the game, that caches found since the game became popular are devaluing the finds of those who came in when caches were few... I just don't see it.

If you find a 5/5 that takes all day and I find 20 1/1s in that same time does my 20 somehow devalue your 1?

If that cache is listed as a 5/5 but I find a shortcut that makes it a drive-up, does my log devalue yours?

If the cache is hung 7' high in a tree and you can reach and sign it but I can't, but I log it because I saw it in the tree, just couldn't reach it, does that devalue your find?

I have never combed someone's profile to see if their numbers come primarily from 1/1s or 5/5s, I don't think anyone else does either, so who is setting this value?

And, is the value in signing the log or the experience of going to the site? I value my DNFs right along with my finds.

That all sounds argumentative, reading it - it's not! I really am interested. :laughing:

Ed

Edited June 14, 2006 by TheAlabamaRambler

June 14, 2006

It's great you all are supporting "Misha" when none of you know the whole story.. and I find it funny he would bring it to the main public forums to try and gain support for his loosing battle in his local association.

Nor do you all know the exact issue which this particular incident has occured, Nor do you all know this Misha character like we all do... or his caches.

Some being swamp ridden micros in the middle of heavy woods which he places and "blames" on other cachers (and that's just my opinion)

it's geocaching, not geologging - you find the cache to find what is hidden, not to sign a log inside

Nuff said

My caches are normal for around here, but did he sign them NO, so did he actually find the container? Or did he drive up decide it must be there and loose interest and not log the cache.

Signing the log sheet is proof that a cacher did find the cache.

My worst is the FN series (FunkyNassau) which are styled after his lame caches. They are 35mm cans with only a log sheet. Funky does many of these.

Misha

I have only deleted 3 of his finds, I will only delete those that I can verify he has not signed, the rest will stand as logged.

3.9k · June 14, 2006

I usually lean toward deleting fake online find logs, and the same particularly for find logs which contain offensive material (i.e., racist, sexist or hostile content aimed at other finders/cachers). However, one recent exception to this was when a now-disabled account appeared out of the blue and started logging (fraudulent) finds on some of the most famous Terrain 5 caches around the world, al in the same afternoon. One of the caches "logged" by this account was our Psycho Urban Cache #9 - Hot Glowing Tribulations. In this case, since the hoax account and fraudulent logs had created a bit of a stir in the geo world, and had led to the existence of two threads on the topic at the national forums (and one as well on the MD local forums), I decided, at least for the nonce, to leave the fraudulent log entry in place as part of the history of the cache, but I entered an online log note appearing immediately above it which noted that the "find" by the account was fraudulent, and explained a bit of the surrounding circumstances. I note that Snoogans made pretty much the same choice regarding how to handle the fake find log by the same hoax account for his Quantum Leap cache. I may remove the fraudulent log entry someday, and perhaps even remove my note explaining that it was fraudulent, but at this time, I think it creates a richer history for all to leave it in place along with my explanatory note to cast it in the proper light.

22k · June 14, 2006

It's great you all are supporting "Misha" when none of you know the whole story.. and I find it funny he would bring it to the main public forums to try and gain support for his loosing battle in his local association.

Nor do you all know the exact issue which this particular incident has occured, Nor do you all know this Misha character like we all do... or his caches.

Some being swamp ridden micros in the middle of heavy woods which he places and "blames" on other cachers (and that's just my opinion)

it's geocaching, not geologging - you find the cache to find what is hidden, not to sign a log inside

Nuff said

A cache owner's requirement to sign the log is hardly an unreasonable request. In fact you can't place a cache without a log book so I would rethink this 'not geo-logging' concept.

Regardless of hidden agendas (on both sides) or local feuds, gc.com has empowered the cache owner with the right to delete logs if in a situation someone claims a find but can't back it up with a signed log. In fact they can delete any find for any dang reason they want. It won't make them any friends but they can do it whether you like it or not.

7.2k · June 14, 2006

...I decided, at least for the nonce, to leave the fraudulent log entry in place as part of the history of the cache, but I entered an online log note appearing immediately above it which noted that the "find" by the account was fraudulent, and explained a bit of the surrounding circumstances.

Another option is link to the log-only page in your note and then delete the log. The log still exists, but only in "archived limbo." You deny the find, but keep at least a link to the history. Depending on your viewpoint this could be the best of both worlds.

9.5k · June 14, 2006

It's great you all are supporting "Misha" when none of you know the whole story.. and I find it funny he would bring it to the main public forums to try and gain support for his loosing battle in his local association.

Nor do you all know the exact issue which this particular incident has occured, Nor do you all know this Misha character like we all do... or his caches.

Some being swamp ridden micros in the middle of heavy woods which he places and "blames" on other cachers (and that's just my opinion)

it's geocaching, not geologging - you find the cache to find what is hidden, not to sign a log inside

Nuff said

Even though there is no hard set rule, the spirit of the game has always been, sign the log to validate the log on the website to make it count.

There is this that says you should sign the log and let the owner know about your experience.

Step 4 – The Find
Huzzah! You found the cache! Congratulations! Now what?

Usually you take an item and leave an item, and enter your name and experience you had into the log book. Some people prefer to just enter their name into the log book. It’s an accomplishment enough to locate the cache.

Make sure to seal the cache and place it back where you found it. If it had some rocks covering it, please replace them. It’s pretty straightforward.

Remember that waypoint we suggested you create where your car/trail was located? Use that now to get back! You’ll be glad you had it.

When you get home, email the person who hid the cache and let them know you found it! They’re always happy to know the condition of their cache and it’s nice to know that people are looking for them.

So, based on the suggestion above and the spirit of the sport as understood by the majority of players, IF you were to choose to declare a find on my cache, you had better sign the log in my cache or the smilie on my cache page will be deleted with a quick explanation of why the deletion. No muss, no fuss. It's the way the game was explained to me in these forums and it's the way I explain the game to others that I introduce.

I said something similar to this a long time back when I first started this hobby sport and it still stands today. Seasoned players are role models and bear a responsibility to ensure the spirit of the game stays in place in order to maintain the integrity of that game. It is our responsibility to ensure new comers to the game understand that. It isn't much to ask for, so why get lazy about it?

Edited to add: SO WHAT if the cache was lame? If you went out to find it and didn't sign the log, that's your choice with consequences to follow.

Edited June 14, 2006 by TotemLake

2.6k · June 14, 2006

it's geocaching, not geologging - you find the cache to find what is hidden, not to sign a log inside

No signature in the log book, no find. That's about as close to a universal precept of geocaching as you're going to get.

June 14, 2006

DELETE!!! and then go get some ice cream to celebrate the end of this problem. :mad: :mad: :laughing:

If he can't prove he was there, then he wasn't there. :mad:

:unsure:

38.2k · June 14, 2006

It's geocaching, not geologging - you find the cache to find what is hidden, not to sign a log inside

Then why even bother with the online log? If the cache is so lame that the person refused to sign the paper log, it stands to reason that its too lame to log online.

1.4k · June 14, 2006

I've had only one instance of what appeared to me as a false find on one of my caches. I quickly deleted the log and sent an email to the account holder explaining why and gave them the opportunity to relog with a better story.

I feel that if your are going to delete a log, do it quickly rather than let if go on for several days to weeks.

June 14, 2006

It's geocaching, not geologging - you find the cache to find what is hidden, not to sign a log inside

Then why even bother with the online log? If the cache is so lame that the person refused to sign the paper log, it stands to reason that its too lame to log online.

because it gets it off their lists....

5.7k · June 14, 2006

I have never verified a single log signature in one of my caches. I never will. It is a total waste of time. :laughing:

22k · June 14, 2006

It's geocaching, not geologging - you find the cache to find what is hidden, not to sign a log inside

Then why even bother with the online log? If the cache is so lame that the person refused to sign the paper log, it stands to reason that its too lame to log online.

because it gets it off their lists....

Navigation

log your visit

remove from watchlist

ignore listing <-------------------------------

bookmark listing

send to phone

June 14, 2006

It's geocaching, not geologging - you find the cache to find what is hidden, not to sign a log inside

Then why even bother with the online log? If the cache is so lame that the person refused to sign the paper log, it stands to reason that its too lame to log online.

because it gets it off their lists....

Wow.....it gets it off their lists....So if I don't like micros all I have to do is log them all as a "find" to avoid seeing them on the search page? That would be really really lame.

9.5k · June 14, 2006

I have never verified a single log signature in one of my caches. I never will. It is a total waste of time.

I have because it isn't a waste of time. It is interesting to see the different ways a signature can be applied from abbreviations to labels and stamps. Sometimes things get put in the paper log that doesn't get put on the web. It also helps to determine what happened to a TB when it has gone missing from the cache but is still indicated it is there.

For the owner, it is all part of the experience.

Edited June 14, 2006 by TotemLake

June 14, 2006

My worst is the FN series (FunkyNassau) which are styled after his lame caches. They are 35mm cans with only a log sheet. Funky does many of these.

Dude, you DON'T want to get into a flame war here with me.. I'm being nice on the MGA boards, here I'll rip you to shreads without caring about it...

If you truely feel like going up against me, you're more of a special case then I took you for... and that's special in a short bus kind of way... any time you want to start compairing caches head to head, I'll welcome your challenge... especially then less then 30% of my total caches are micros, and even those micros are in better locations then the majority of yours.. spread around the province to intesting and unique locations... And they ALWAYS have a pencil at the least unless the container is too small to hold one, in which case I mantion it is too small.... you hide 35mm cotnainers with no pencils on a regular basis. And for the record, no micros of mine have been hidden in swamps.... in fact if you read your logs online, you'll see others questioning why you have so dubbed those caches in my name....

You have 35 listed micros out of 63 caches, which is over 50%... You want to compare ANY of your caches vs the best of mine you're welcome to, just remember you're the one spilling this over into these forums..

The point is, I know Dragoon (The person whos logs he has been deleting) has been to every location he has said to...

9.5k · June 14, 2006

It's geocaching, not geologging - you find the cache to find what is hidden, not to sign a log inside

Then why even bother with the online log? If the cache is so lame that the person refused to sign the paper log, it stands to reason that its too lame to log online.

because it gets it off their lists....

Wow.....it gets it off their lists....So if I don't like micros all I have to do is log them all as a "find" to avoid seeing them on the search page? That would be really really lame.

Is there a new feature on the Search list? Last time I looked, the cache still shows up but with a checkmark next to it, so that really doesn't make any sense, unless they're talking about PQ's. In which case, you can choose to ignore certain caches. (There's that ignore feature again... imagine my surprise).

3.1k · June 14, 2006

Here is a plan....

How about you folks stay away from each other. You DO NOT find each others caches, bad mouth each other or have anything to do with each others geocaching experience.....life is too short.

Geesh....grown men acting like little whiny children.... :laughing:

9.5k · June 14, 2006

My worst is the FN series (FunkyNassau) which are styled after his lame caches. They are 35mm cans with only a log sheet. Funky does many of these.

Dude, you DON'T want to get into a flame war here with me.. I'm being nice on the MGA boards, here I'll rip you to shreads without caring about it...

If you truely feel like going up against me, you're more of a special case then I took you for... and that's special in a short bus kind of way... any time you want to start compairing caches head to head, I'll welcome your challenge... especially then less then 30% of my total caches are micros, and even those micros are in better locations then the majority of yours.. spread around the province to intesting and unique locations... And they ALWAYS have a pencil at the least unless the container is too small to hold one, in which case I mantion it is too small.... you hide 35mm cotnainers with no pencils on a regular basis. And for the record, no micros of mine have been hidden in swamps.... in fact if you read your logs online, you'll see others questioning why you have so dubbed those caches in my name....

You have 35 listed micros out of 63 caches, which is over 50%... You want to compare ANY of your caches vs the best of mine you're welcome to, just remember you're the one spilling this over into these forums..

The point is, I know Dragoon (The person whos logs he has been deleting) has been to every location he has said to...

Looks like this is the time to take this off-line folks.

June 14, 2006

Wow.....it gets it off their lists....So if I don't like micros all I have to do is log them all as a "find" to avoid seeing them on the search page? That would be really really lame.

If you're holding the micro in your hands, have no writing implements, are you going to run around to find one?

The point is to find what is hidden, logging a single name on a sheet is silly when the main logs are done online for the most part... here at least.. especially when there are killer skiters trying to carry you away into the swamps

In any event, I'm done with this thread and heading back to the MGA... Misha will still more then likely respond with one liners to my last post which I expect, but I don't really care anymore... he's souring things for me and I'm not really in the mood to let that happen... no sence in me getting pissed off and wasting energy at others I don't know... Especially at the call and cause of someone like him who I'm not even going to name anymore

22k · June 14, 2006

Edited June 14, 2006 by BlueDeuce

June 14, 2006

Wow.....it gets it off their lists....So if I don't like micros all I have to do is log them all as a "find" to avoid seeing them on the search page? That would be really really lame.

If you're holding the micro in your hands, have no writing implements, are you going to run around to find one?

The point is to find what is hidden, logging a single name on a sheet is silly when the main logs are done online for the most part... here at least.. especially when there are killer skiters trying to carry you away into the swamps

In any event, I'm done with this thread and heading back to the MGA... Misha will still more then likely respond with one liners to my last post which I expect, but I don't really care anymore... he's souring things for me and I'm not really in the mood to let that happen... no sence in me getting pissed off and wasting energy at others I don't know... Especially at the call and cause of someone like him who I'm not even going to name anymore

The caches I am questioning had pencils and or pens, Funky I only have about 10 of more than 60 hides without a pen

June 14, 2006

http://www.maritimegeocaching.com/forum/

21.9k · June 14, 2006

http://www.maritimegeocaching.com/forum/

Thanks for that link. Please follow it and continue your personal battle with FunkyNassau there. If the two of you cannot post here in a respectful manner then discuss it elsewhere.

::: Referee raises yellow warning card :::

June 14, 2006

When I started with all this geo madness I was a little shy about signing logs, don't ask me why. After about five or six I got over it. I have why problem signing them now. I say he is not finding them, There is no reason not to sign a log.

2.3k · June 14, 2006

No sign, no find.

Delete.

It cheapens the finds of those who were there to see fake finds on the cache. If he cant be bothered to sign the log because it is so "lame", then he shouldnt log online either.

Agreed.

DELETE.

24.7k · June 14, 2006

No sign, no find.

Delete.

It cheapens the finds of those who were there [and did it right].

Exactly. Those who found the cache the right way deserve to have their efforts upheald.

The guy looks like he has a garbage attitude. I'd not lose sleep over deleting the log.

June 14, 2006

Maybe if I decided to go out and find 50+ drive-by micros in a day, I'd feel differently. Personally, I think I'd go insane after about 3, but to each their own.

I think it's very rude to (a) not be bothered to sign the log book and ( post a generic, boring, cut and paste log to every one of them. There have been a few caches that I've failed to sign, but I've tried to at least tell a story of my find and give a good reason. I once logged a find for a cache that I never even opened. I slipped in the mud and nearly fell into a river getting to it, and when I found it, the cache was covered in fire ants! I logged a find along with a story and a muddy picture of myself. I'd probably be a bit annoyed if my find was deleted, but that's the cache owner's right. If, however, I posted a "found it, TLTSL" log on the web, I'd EXPECT that the owner would delete my find.

Edited June 14, 2006 by Mary&Dave

June 14, 2006

I feel a sense of satisfaction and accomplishment from signing my name on the log. I say delete!!!!!!!!!

10.1k · June 14, 2006

Sign log = found cache. Delete.

Cachers Who Don't Sign The Log, Do We Let Them Keep Their Finds Or

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