Find Or No Find?: Your Views Appreciated...

[+OzGuff]

A micro cache goes missing. A "helpful" cacher replaces the missing

cache (a very small breath mint strip container) with a different

cache container (a 35mm film canister) and places it in a slightly

different location, about five feet from the original spot. The cache

owner checks on the original cache location and finds the cache

missing. He doesn't realize that the replacement cache is still there

as it was placed in a different location. The cache owner decides to

archive the cache.

 

A few months later he places a new cache using an atypical container

about fifteen feet from the location of the now-archived cache. (The

cache owner still does not realize that there is a replacement cache

container sitting about ten feet away from this new cache.)

 

A few more months later the cache owner hears from a cacher that

renovations will put the cache out of commission for a month or so,

and decides to remove the cache container for that time. The owner of

a business nearby the cache accompanies the cache owner and shows

where the cache container is -- and points out the replacement cache.

Since the cache owner had already picked up the real cache container

he quickly realizes what has happened. (This hypothetical cache owner

is pretty smart!)

 

Checking the logsheets for the real and replacement caches it turns

out that of the ten cachers who had logged finds on the cache 7 had

signed the logsheet in the real, atypical container, and 3 had signed

the logsheet in the bogus, replacement 35mm film canister. The cache

page for the atypical container warns that tweezers will be needed.

 

Did the 3 who signed the bogus log "find" the new, atypical cache or

the old, bogus replacement cache? Should they delete their "find" on the

new, atypical cache and log a "find" on the old, bogus replacement

cache or leave things as they are? What if one of them had already found

the now-archived cache? Do they deserve a "find" on the new, atypical

cache for signing the old, bogus replacement cache?

[+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking]

I think they deserve a find. No they didnt find the right container, but they also had no way to know that, nor did the cache owner know to tell them that one container is false. I think this long after the fact, it would be mean to delete their finds. This is just one of those things that happens.

[+BlueDeuce]

It stands.

 

If I was one the of three and learned about the mix up I would go back and sign the correct log (when it was back in action.) Perhaps the three could be told and decide for themselves.

[+Henki]

I think they deserve a find. No they didnt find the right container, but they also had no way to know that, nor did the cache owner know to tell them that one container is false. I think this long after the fact, it would be mean to delete their finds. This is just one of those things that happens.

 

I agree.

[+sbell111]

I agree with the blue dude and the viking. Let the finds stand, but let the cachers know what happened. They may want to check out the hide.

[+wimseyguy]

Put away the can opener and spoon. Let the finds stand. They found a micro container with log sheet within an acceptable distance from where the coords said to look, and signed the log.

It's already been mentioned in several running threads that plenty of cachers don't even look at cache pages, just loaded GPS's. The "helpful" cacher probably should have mentioned something about his good deed to the cache owner way back when.

[+briansnat]

If it were my cache, I wouldn't delete the finds - with the exception of the person who left the throw down cache. Everyone else went to the spot and found what they in good faith believed to be the cache. The "helpful" geocacher found puppy squat.

 

Argument number 27 as to why these "throw down" caches are a bad idea.

Edited June 28, 2006 by briansnat

[CoyoteRed]

If it were my cache, I wouldn't delete the finds - with the exception of the person who left the throw down cache. Everyone else went to the spot and found what they in good faith believed to be the cache. The "helpful" geocacher found puppy squat.

 

Argument number 27 as to why these "throw down" caches are a bad idea.

 

My thinking exactly!

[+Deliveryguy428]

It stands because it is not their fault they did not know about the bogus container, if the owner really wants to get picky and split hairs that is his choice, but if I was the cache owner, I'd let it stand.

[+Monkeybrad]

I have to agree with the rest of the group. The cachers who found the replacement had no way of knowing and did nothing wrong. This is just one of the problems with replacing other peoples caches. On more than one occassion, I have had my caches replaced by overzealous cachers only to find the original cache still in place. You learn which people do this in an area pretty quickly and you know to go double check when they log one of your caches.

[+ParrotRobAndCeCe]

If it were my cache, I wouldn't delete the finds - with the exception of the person who left the throw down cache. Everyone else went to the spot and found what they in good faith believed to be the cache. The "helpful" geocacher found puppy squat.

 

Argument number 27 as to why these "throw down" caches are a bad idea.

 

My thinking exactly!

 

Of course, had common sense been followed in the first place, none of this would have happened. Had the "helpful" cacher logged correctly, the cache owner would have realized his was gone and, being a responsible cache owner, would have removed the imposter cache and replaced his, or at least disabled it.

[+briansnat]

If it were my cache, I wouldn't delete the finds - with the exception of the person who left the throw down cache. Everyone else went to the spot and found what they in good faith believed to be the cache. The "helpful" geocacher found puppy squat.

 

Argument number 27 as to why these "throw down" caches are a bad idea.

 

My thinking exactly!

 

Of course, had common sense been followed in the first place, none of this would have happened. Had the "helpful" cacher logged correctly, the cache owner would have realized his was gone and, being a responsible cache owner, would have removed the imposter cache and replaced his, or at least disabled it.

 

But he was playing his own game. Who are we to tell him that he can't do that?

[+StarBrand]

They are all finds.

 

I am sure the guy was just trying to be helpful - early on I replaced a cache that was victim to severe weather damage (90% missing but lid with GC number was still there and fragments). I had no idea at the time that it was considered bad form to leave a replacement - thought I was helping the guy out. He confirmed it and thanked me. But that was almost 4 years ago.

[+ParrotRobAndCeCe]

If it were my cache, I wouldn't delete the finds - with the exception of the person who left the throw down cache. Everyone else went to the spot and found what they in good faith believed to be the cache. The "helpful" geocacher found puppy squat.

 

Argument number 27 as to why these "throw down" caches are a bad idea.

 

My thinking exactly!

 

Of course, had common sense been followed in the first place, none of this would have happened. Had the "helpful" cacher logged correctly, the cache owner would have realized his was gone and, being a responsible cache owner, would have removed the imposter cache and replaced his, or at least disabled it.

 

But he was playing his own game. Who are we to tell him that he can't do that?

 

You're right. Common sense, unfortunately, is sometimes pretty uncommon.

[+Criminal]

Sticky wicket. The recent finders do not deserve anything, they found something, but they didn’t find the cache. I could go either way on it really.

 

As for the person who replaced the cache (if he\she did so without the cache owner’s approval) their ‘find’ should be deleted and their account banned. Then they can start all over from zero and hopefully learn a lesson.

[+Glenn]

Sticky wicket. The recent finders do not deserve anything, they found something, but they didn’t find the cache. I could go either way on it really.

 

As for the person who replaced the cache (if he\she did so without the cache owner’s approval) their ‘find’ should be deleted and their account banned. Then they can start all over from zero and hopefully learn a lesson.

To elaborate on this point a bit. What if the person that "replaced" the cache only did it because they wanted to increase their find count. This could easily snowball in to people carrying "replacement" caches to be placed when the cache they are looking for is just to hard for them to find.

 

Before anyone goes mental on me, this is only hypothetical. By making this post I am in no way accusing anyone of hiding a second cache in order to boost their numbers. But I do reserve the right to do so anytime later.

 

And don't say that this "way to play" won't hurt anyone. What if the original container, the exact hid location, retrieval method, or the exact location was special or unique in some way that the fake hid is not. That surely would take away from experience for each and future finder, which could be me or even you. Unless you are the owner of the cache or a past finder then just leave a DNF log and let the owner take care of it.

[+NorthWes]

I have no issue with those who logged a cache they found in the coordinate location; I see the mistake here is replacing a cache without contacting the owner first. If the owner doesn't respond, then either ask for the cache to be archived or go through the rescue process... and certainly, if the original cache construction was unique and the replacement detracted from that uniqueness then even less respect for the 'helpful' replacer. Sometimes we forget the cache belongs to the owner - not to the caching public! Still - if the cache has fallen into such disrepair that it's now 'trash' - I'd be very proactive about getting it removed or replaced. I've done so in four cases here - local land managers that are benign regarding geocaching hate "trash' on lands under their stewardship - and that's what a cache becomes when it's open to the weather & animals and is being spread all over its hide area.

 

As in all things involving contact between people, good communication practices help forestall confusion.

 

I replaced one of my own caches when it was dnf'd 3 times (and I couldn't find it either.) Two days after I put in the replacement the next cacher found both cache containers nestled next to each other. Wierd. Did someone remove the container from the cache site only to return it later? If so, why didn't they contact me to let me know there were now two containers on site!?! If only the cache container could talk...

[+briansnat]

To elaborate on this point a bit. What if the person that "replaced" the cache only did it because they wanted to increase their find count. This could easily snowball in to people carrying "replacement" caches to be placed when the cache they are looking for is just to hard for them to find.

 

Snowball? Its already a very common practice among the numbers padders.

[+OzGuff]

Just to expand on a few things:

 

1. The cacher(s) who replaced the cache let me know by way of their online log, but did not tell me the type of container or exactly where the situated it. I went out to check on my missing cache and found nothing. Not mine -- which was apparently really missing -- nor the replacement cache -- as I only checked the location of where I had originally placed the cache.

 

2. Since the original cache had gone missing a few times I archived it, not realizing that geo-litter had now been created by the replacement cache.

 

3. A few months later I placed a completely new cache listing about 15 feet from the original, now-archived spot. The first 7 finders all found the correct and unique container; the last three found the replacement cache for the archived cache, which did not have the name or waypoint of the cache written on the logsheet.

 

4. Not that I am drawing any conclusions, but the group of four cachers who replaced the cache without my permission now have a total find count of 12,260.

 

5. Two of the three cachers who found the replacement container have accepted my offer allowing them to find the archived cache -- which they did anyway -- and have deleted their logs on the cache that they thought they found. Smilie counts remain unchanged. The cacher who hasn't deleted their log had previously found the replaced cache before it was replaced and then archived.

 

6. From the language of the cache page it is readily apparent that the cache is NOT a 35mm film canister.

 

I know that the cachers who "found" the replacement cache did not deliberately commit "caching fraud" -- my phrase, use it if you like -- but they definitely did not sign the logsheet of the cache in question. I tend to agree with Criminal about the recent finders. Not sure how I feel about the four rogue placers having their find counts reset to zero...

[+budd-rdc]

Thanks for following up with more detail.

 

No controversy here, the finds should stand. Intentions seemed noble for all cases.

 

In the old days (on or before 2004), courtesy replacement was acceptable until confusion ensued, so most of the locals stopped doing it. It still happens, but the replacement better be exactly the same as the missing one! A find count for a remote maintenance seems a good "trade", which implies FIND COUNT IS A FORM OF CURRENCY!!!

 

With clever camouflage and placement these days, this practice should be strongly discouraged.

 

Since the group that replaced your cache GOT IT WRONG, you are welcome to dish out an appropriate punishment.

[+Belfrypotters]

They are all finds.

 

I am sure the guy was just trying to be helpful - early on I replaced a cache that was victim to severe weather damage (90% missing but lid with GC number was still there and fragments). I had no idea at the time that it was considered bad form to leave a replacement - thought I was helping the guy out. He confirmed it and thanked me. But that was almost 4 years ago.

Some of the rules of this game are a bit obscure. We did exactly this a couple of weeks ago, thinking we were being helpful. No wonder we didn't get a 'thank you' from the cache owner. I posted an apology on the cache page and hopefully s/he'll just delete my find and not have our account banned. You learn something from the forums every day.

[+briansnat]

They are all finds.

 

I am sure the guy was just trying to be helpful - early on I replaced a cache that was victim to severe weather damage (90% missing but lid with GC number was still there and fragments). I had no idea at the time that it was considered bad form to leave a replacement - thought I was helping the guy out. He confirmed it and thanked me. But that was almost 4 years ago.

Some of the rules of this game are a bit obscure. We did exactly this a couple of weeks ago, thinking we were being helpful. No wonder we didn't get a 'thank you' from the cache owner. I posted an apology on the cache page and hopefully s/he'll just delete my find and not have our account banned. You learn something from the forums every day.

 

There is a big difference between replacing a cache container you know is damaged and just throwing down a new cache because you can't find the original. The latter happens often enough to be a problem. There are some locations with as many as three containers thanks to "helpful" geocachers. There is a level of hubris here - an "If I can't find it, it must be missing" attitude. Its also interesting that the "helpful" geocachers are more often than not, numbers hounds.

[+RichardMoore]

If it were my cache, I wouldn't delete the finds - with the exception of the person who left the throw down cache. Everyone else went to the spot and found what they in good faith believed to be the cache. The "helpful" geocacher found puppy squat.

 

Argument number 27 as to why these "throw down" caches are a bad idea.

 

My thinking exactly!

I agree with leaving the finder's finds intact.

But I'm not sure about deleting the re-hider's find. I think that would depend on how long ago this happened. If, when you went and verified that your cache was gone and couldn't find theirs, you questioned them about it and/or deleted their find, that would be fine. But you allowed the find before and would now disallow it? Part of the blame is your's for not following through thoroughly enough. How many throw-down caches would they not have done since if you had deleted their find for this one?

[+Blaidd-Drwg]

Sticky wicket. The recent finders do not deserve anything, they found something, but they didn’t find the cache. I could go either way on it really.

 

As for the person who replaced the cache (if he\she did so without the cache owner’s approval) their ‘find’ should be deleted and their account banned. Then they can start all over from zero and hopefully learn a lesson.

I agree with Criminal. I once located a cache that another cacher had 'been kind enough to replace'. Unfortunately, he never found the original cache, nor looked thoroughly enough. It was about 40 feet from where he put the replacement. Based on his log, where he admitted not finding the cache, I spent about 40 minutes searching until I located the correct cache. So, delete the rehider's find, but leave the innocent accidental finders smilies.

[+Audion64]

If it were my cache, I wouldn't delete the finds - with the exception of the person who left the throw down cache. Everyone else went to the spot and found what they in good faith believed to be the cache. The "helpful" geocacher found puppy squat.

 

Argument number 27 as to why these "throw down" caches are a bad idea.

 

My thinking exactly!

 

Of course, had common sense been followed in the first place, none of this would have happened. Had the "helpful" cacher logged correctly, the cache owner would have realized his was gone and, being a responsible cache owner, would have removed the imposter cache and replaced his, or at least disabled it.

 

Not always the case. Many times the orginal cache WAS in place, the 'helpful' cacher just sucked and couldn't find it, quickly ASSUMED the orginal was missing and dropped a 'throw down'. Now explain to me why a cache owner should have to go out to his cache site to check on his cache when it really was there, and then try to locate the imposter 'throw down' to help future hunters avoid confusion. Heck if I have to find a throw down replacement for one of my caches I'm claiming a dang Smiley since I'll have to FIND it.

 

Like many have said... this is just one of many reasons to NOT go replacing other peoples caches.