what would you do?

[+nfa]

I got an email last night about a cache that I archived about a month ago...the person said that they got to the right spot, and so would like to log the cache as a "found"...maybe I'm overly strict, but I feel like if the cache has been archived for almost a month, there's no cache at the location, and you didn't sign a logbook, you really shouldn't log it as a found...

 

What would you have done? What have you done? I have no wish top be mean, but it seems a bit silly to me...

 

Jamie - NFA

[+Kit Fox]

This is a clear case of "no find." I would tell the cachers that you can't log a location, especially on an archived cache, after the fact. You can even send them a link to the "found it = didn't find it" thread.

Edited August 13, 2006 by Kit Fox

[+Zzyzx Road]

I wouldn't count it as a find, but...

Similar situation, how would you answer this one? My daughter was caching with me from the start, and she actually found a couple of them on her own, but only I signed because she had no account. (I wanted to make sure she would stick with it first!) Now that she is really into it (found 51 already) I have asked 5 owners, whose caches we found together and are archived, if she can log online the find for the same date as mine. Not the rest of the active caches that she will go back and physically log herself, just those she has no chance of signing. So far they have all been really very nice about it, and have let her log those.

[+nikcap]

This is ridiculous!

How do they know that they found the right spot?

Maybe the 'tudes where off by 80ft and that's why it was archived.

I can handle someone claiming they saw the cache box, but didn't sign the log because the box was frozen shut, or there was a hornets nest or a snake next to the cache.

Actually finding an archived cache, that's physically still in place is cool too.

But logging a find on a cache that is physically missing and archived on the GC site is silly.

I had a similar situation with one of my caches. I asked the user to delete his log, as the entry would be confusing to the property manager. He complied w/o a problem.

I'm also sure the local cache community will chime in on the local circuit too.

Edited August 13, 2006 by ekitt10

[+Torry]

I once found a cache that had been archived. The previous searcher wrote a DNF and the owner, who had dropped out of the game, just archived it. I didn't know about the archiving until I went to log my find.

[+briansnat]

How can he find something that isn't there?

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

On the OP's situation, no, clearly no find, and silly to boot!

 

On ZZYXZ's situation, yep, she found them, she gets to log them.

 

On Torry's, yep, he found it - that the owner left the cache in place but archived the cache listing is irrelevant.

 

Ed

[+sbell111]

Whether or not the cache was archived is a red herring. If he didn't sign the log, he didn't make the find.

[+tozainamboku]

Whether or not the cache was archived is a red herring. If he didn't sign the log, he didn't make the find.

 

The real cause of the problem is that Geocaching.com doesn't include archived caches in PQs. My guess is that the finder had the cache in their GSAK database and when NFA archived it, it stayed in their database. So they went to look for it an didn't find it. They then went to log their DNF and when the saw that it had been archive and thought that they should get to log a find because it wasn't their fault they didn't find it. The cache wasn't there so there was nothing to DNF, how should they log it? NFA doesn't owe them a smiley, but perhaps GC.com does

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Whether or not the cache was archived is a red herring. If he didn't sign the log, he didn't make the find.

 

The real cause of the problem is that Geocaching.com doesn't include archived caches in PQs. My guess is that the finder had the cache in their GSAK database and when NFA archived it, it stayed in their database. So they went to look for it an didn't find it. They then went to log their DNF and when the saw that it had been archive and thought that they should get to log a find because it wasn't their fault they didn't find it. The cache wasn't there so there was nothing to DNF, how should they log it? NFA doesn't owe them a smiley, but perhaps GC.com does

 

Even for me that's a bit of tortured logic! While I advocate cache owners being nice and trusting unless they have reason not to be, you gotta FIND the cache to claim it. Signing is a different issue.

 

Archived caches are, all too often, left in place as geotrash, and so can still be found. Trying to claim a find on where the cache used to be is a stretch too far unless you have proof it's missing (have the owner on the phone) and he / she allows it...

[+DocDiTTo]

On the OP's situation, no, clearly no find, and silly to boot!

 

On ZZYXZ's situation, yep, she found them, she gets to log them.

 

On Torry's, yep, he found it - that the owner left the cache in place but archived the cache listing is irrelevant.

 

Ed

 

100% absolutely, positively correct on all counts. If the log is signed, it's a find -- archived or not. No log signed, no find -- archived or not.

[CoyoteRed]

I have, and will continue, to deny a find on caches that were not there. It's simple; no cache, no find.

[+Mopar]

Whether or not the cache was archived is a red herring. If he didn't sign the log, he didn't make the find.

 

The real cause of the problem is that Geocaching.com doesn't include archived caches in PQs. My guess is that the finder had the cache in their GSAK database and when NFA archived it, it stayed in their database. So they went to look for it an didn't find it. They then went to log their DNF and when the saw that it had been archive and thought that they should get to log a find because it wasn't their fault they didn't find it. The cache wasn't there so there was nothing to DNF, how should they log it? NFA doesn't owe them a smiley, but perhaps GC.com does

Sorry Mr. T, but this time you're wrong.

 

Here's the text of the log on Jamie's cache:

Well, I had printed the cache page out a day before it was archived! The family and I are on day two of our Summer 2006 roadtrip from NJ. This was our second of the day and we searched and had a nice time in the park. I took some pictures knowing that we were in the correct spot. Hopefully after I e-mail the owner, we can count this as a find. TFTC.

 

The cache was archived July 15th, so that means on Aug 11th (the dat of the above log) the cacher was using a printout from July 14th; almost a month old.

The lesson to be learned here is not to use stale data.

 

PS: I agree it's not a smiley.

Edited August 13, 2006 by Mopar

[+IV_Warrior]

Whether or not the cache was archived is a red herring. If he didn't sign the log, he didn't make the find.

 

The real cause of the problem is that Geocaching.com doesn't include archived caches in PQs. My guess is that the finder had the cache in their GSAK database and when NFA archived it, it stayed in their database. So they went to look for it an didn't find it. They then went to log their DNF and when the saw that it had been archive and thought that they should get to log a find because it wasn't their fault they didn't find it. The cache wasn't there so there was nothing to DNF, how should they log it? NFA doesn't owe them a smiley, but perhaps GC.com does

 

No, the real cause of the problem is people with twisted logic like this. It's not gc.com's fault you're using stale data, it's YOUR fault. Quit storing stale data and you won't have the problem.

 

The cache wasn't there to be found, nobody owes this person a smilie. Be it because they weren't paperless and used a printout from 2 months ago, or they are paperless and are silly enough to go out with stale data.

[CoyoteRed]

It's not gc.com's fault you're using stale data, it's YOUR fault. Quit storing stale data and you won't have the problem.

 

From Mopar's post above, it was not stored data. It was a month old printout.

 

But, then again, the information on any one particular cache is only as fresh as the last log or owner check. This could mean a cache could have been missing for a couple of years without anyone knowing and this site would still list it as available.

 

Regardless of how old the data is there is a chance the cache will be missing. It could be archived and removed, it could be temporarily taken off line for maintenance issues, or it could be muggled. Regardless of the reason, if the cache is not there, then it's not a find. Doesn't matter who's fault it is, it's still a DNF.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Regardless of the reason, if the cache is not there, then it's not a find. Doesn't matter who's fault it is, it's still a DNF.

 

Fortunately, not always. If someone calls me and says they're at my cache but can't find it, I give them a clue. If that doesn't work I give them explicit instructions. If they still don't find it and I am convinced they've given it a real try and the cache is in fact gone, I'll tell them to claim a find and I will go check it later. That happened just yesterday.

 

Why should I deny them and make them come back? Now if I go look and it's there I would expect them to delete the find log on their own.

 

Most of the cachers in my area extend the same courtesy to others. Maybe it's a Southern thing! (Oops, happened in Massachusets too, at an event - the cache was missing but all hunters told to log it)

 

I like shades of gray, they make for a nicer softer view of the world.

 

Ed

[+briansnat]

Whether or not the cache was archived is a red herring. If he didn't sign the log, he didn't make the find.

 

The real cause of the problem is that Geocaching.com doesn't include archived caches in PQs. My guess is that the finder had the cache in their GSAK database and when NFA archived it, it stayed in their database. So they went to look for it an didn't find it. They then went to log their DNF and when the saw that it had been archive and thought that they should get to log a find because it wasn't their fault they didn't find it. The cache wasn't there so there was nothing to DNF, how should they log it? NFA doesn't owe them a smiley, but perhaps GC.com does

 

Let me get this straight. Its Geocaching.com's fault that the someone doesn't regularly update his cache data, or uses month old printouts?

 

Fortunately, not always. If someone calls me and says they're at my cache but can't find it, I give them a clue. If that doesn't work I give them explicit instructions. If they still don't find it and I am convinced they've given it a real try and the cache is in fact gone, I'll tell them to claim a find and I will go check it later. That happened just yesterday.

 

Why should I deny them and make them come back? Now if I go look and it's there I would expect them to delete the find log on their own.

 

Most of the cachers in my area extend the same courtesy to others. Maybe it's a Southern thing! (Oops, happened in Massachusets too, at an event - the cache was missing but all hunters told to log it)

 

I really don't get the point of saying you found a cache when you didn't. Whether the owner tells you to log a find or not is irrelevent. The cache isn't there, its a DNF. Anything else is a lie.

 

I was lured into wasting my time and gas going after a missing cache because of phony finds on a cache that the owner "allowed". I don't care if the owner allowed the finds or not, wasting the time and money of others is not acceptable.

Edited August 13, 2006 by briansnat

[+IV_Warrior]

Why should I deny them and make them come back? Now if I go look and it's there I would expect them to delete the find log on their own.

 

 

Oh, I don't know. Maybe because they DIDN'T FIND THE CACHE? They should be logging DNF's not FINDS.

[CoyoteRed]

I like shades of gray, they make for a nicer softer view of the world.

 

Yeah, we all know how you like a nice fuzzy view of the world. We also know where it got you. You drew the line in that gray area a lot differently than nearly anyone else and got spanked.

 

Knowing this, what would you encourage in others?

[+Sagefox]

If someone calls me and says they're at my cache but can't find it, I give them a clue. If that doesn't work I give them explicit instructions. If they still don't find it and I am convinced they've given it a real try and the cache is in fact gone, I'll tell them to claim a find and I will go check it later. That happened just yesterday.

I like shades of gray, they make for a nicer softer view of the world.

 

Ed

 

Its nice to be nice. I am very nice too. I'll give any hints anyone wants and have even offered to take people right to the cache. But what purpose does it serve to allow finds to people when the container is not found, especially if the container is actually missing? Finding a cache is having the container in hand (or having a teammate hand the logbook to you or even having a teammate sign for you in your presence).

 

Why should I deny them and make them come back?

 

You won't get much agreement on this. Why shouldn't they come back to look again? It is fun, stimulating and satisfying to come back to a dnf site and make a "real" find.

[+Glenn]

Whether or not the cache was archived is a red herring. If he didn't sign the log, he didn't make the find.

 

The real cause of the problem is that Geocaching.com doesn't include archived caches in PQs. My guess is that the finder had the cache in their GSAK database and when NFA archived it, it stayed in their database. So they went to look for it an didn't find it. They then went to log their DNF and when the saw that it had been archive and thought that they should get to log a find because it wasn't their fault they didn't find it. The cache wasn't there so there was nothing to DNF, how should they log it? NFA doesn't owe them a smiley, but perhaps GC.com does

 

No, the real cause of the problem is people with twisted logic like this. It's not gc.com's fault you're using stale data, it's YOUR fault. Quit storing stale data and you won't have the problem.

 

The cache wasn't there to be found, nobody owes this person a smilie. Be it because they weren't paperless and used a printout from 2 months ago, or they are paperless and are silly enough to go out with stale data.

 

I think your right IV_Warrior. Using the same twisted logic anyone should be allowed to clame a find on any archived cache because sometime in the future there will be a cache placed at or near that location. Just because the container and log arn't there yet and may not be there for many years shouldn't count againt them. After all they did go there didn't they? I wonder if some people are confusing geolocation with geocaching.

[+Sagefox]

I like shades of gray, they make for a nicer softer view of the world.

 

Yeah, we all know how you like a nice fuzzy view of the world. We also know where it got you. You drew the line in that gray area a lot differently than nearly anyone else and got spanked.

 

From reading many of his posts I think AR is a very thoughtful person and is very much in touch with what people call the spirit of geocaching.

 

I think it serves no useful purpose to this forum to make negative statements like the above quote.

[+Sagefox]

I like shades of gray, they make for a nicer softer view of the world.

 

Yeah, we all know how you like a nice fuzzy view of the world.

 

But (a continuation of my favorite rant), can you tell us what the actual damage is from fuzzy behavior? I have often speculated that questionable finds likely make up less than 1 or 2% of most geocacher's individual statistics. I haven't decided what amount "most geocachers" is yet but expect it to be about 95% of all cachers who have more than 100 finds. Is 2% really worth getting worked up over?

 

10 to 20% fuzzyness from less than 5% of all geocachers would not be and indicator of systemic failure. What about 20% fuzzy behavior from 20% of all cachers. Then we’d have an epidemic on our hands and it would be time to get out the Humvees. Can you show us that fuzzy behavior is happening in significant amounts?

 

I believe we can best address the fuzzy-find problem (if there is one) by carefully reminding people that log our caches incorrectly (usually newbies) that they should make the appropriate correction. And when know of cache owners that award finds inappropriately we should discuss it with them, carefully.

 

It would serve us all very well to keep in mind that a fuzzy finder or a fuzzy find awarder might only be doing this activity 2% of the time. Hardly worth casting them to the dogs for that.

[CoyoteRed]

From reading many of his posts I think AR is a very thoughtful person and is very much in touch with what people call the spirit of geocaching.

 

If this is the case then I'm certain he would not have made such an egregious mis-step as he did a couple of months back. Clearly he was completely out of touch with what people call the spirit of geocaching.

 

...can you tell us what the actual damage is from fuzzy behavior?

 

Can you tell me the damage to the hobby by actually firmly sticking by a few simple rules? You know, stuff like only posting a Found It log when you've signed the logbook.

 

Look, the point I was trying to make above with AR "fuzzing" the line was the fact he drew the line very differently than the majority of others. Very specifically, where do you draw the line of when you can claim a find when you've not signed the logbook. See, that's what you get when you live in the world gray--you don't know if line you draw is acceptable to others. AR's situation illustrated this perfectly.

 

This conversation wouldn't even be happening if the community had a clear rule of "sign the logbook, get a smilie." It appears the majority hold this rule. It's the folks who keep pushing the fuzzy world that is causing the problems.

[+IV_Warrior]

 

But (a continuation of my favorite rant), can you tell us what the actual damage is from fuzzy behavior?

 

Come back after you've wasted a bunch of your time searching for an extended period for a cache because it was "just found yesterday" and you later find out the cache was missing and it was one of the "fuzzy" loggers who posted the find. I bet you won't still think the behaviour "only hurts the cheaters" as many of their defenders like to claim.

[+Harry Dolphin]

What would I do? "Sorry, cache is not there. You did not sign the log. Please change your 'find' to a 'DNF' or a 'Note'. Or I will delete it."

It still astounds me that so many geocachers will deliberately lie, and claim a find, when they have not.

I guess that I have a reputation for being a jerk. Oh, well. I have a very nice webcam. Cell phone reception is spotty at best. But, during season, there are pay phones nearby. The weather can be terrible. Okay. This is all spelt out on the webpage. Along with the requirement: "A picture of you, taken by the webcam, and posted here, is required to log this cache." Seemed simple to me. It is a webcam cache, after all. At last count, 30% of cachers logging the cache had not fulfilled this requirement.

I have no problem expecting cachers to 'sign the log' (or sign a piece of paper and put it in the cache if the log is missing, or too wet to sign). Or to post a picture taken by the webcam.

I thought that geocaching was about finding the cache, and signing the log. Not about going somewhere near a cache. Yes, most of my caches will take you somewhere pretty. But, you still have to find the cache, and sign the log.

[+Sagefox]

 

If this is the case then I'm certain he would not have made such an egregious mis-step as he did a couple of months back. Clearly he was completely out of touch with what people call the spirit of geocaching.

 

But that was THAT topic. This topic is not the same as THAT topic.

[+GRANPA ALEX]

You know . . . I perfectly agree with Alabama Rambler, as my personal ego is not tied up with/by sitting in judgement over others and demanding adherence to some arbitrary (even if reasonable) rules, as if my opinion is so much greater than anyone elses.

 

It is simply & only a GAME, there is no law here, no penalty and no painful consequences to being fair, considerate and nice to another person (cacher or muggle).

 

BTW & IMHO, when people make disparaging and insinuating remarks about an unfortunate and unhappy situation another person experiences, it becomes a measure of their own diminished character - not that of the unhappy one who erred.

 

We all make mistakes, it is so refreshing to have them repeatedly mentioned & thrown in our face, is it not? Why not make a great big full page avatar to draw unwarranted/undeserved attention to one's self without trying to make others appear diminuiative so you can look larger.

Edited August 13, 2006 by GRANPA ALEX

[+AuntieWeasel]

You know . . . I perfectly agree with Alabama Rambler, as my personal ego is not tied up with/by sitting in judgement over others and demanding adherence to some arbitrary (even if reasonable) rules, as if my opinion is so much greater than anyone elses.

No, your personal ego is tied up with sitting in judgement of people who do demand adherence to reasonable rules.

 

Frankly, karma-wise, I don't see much difference. Except the 'reasonable rule' people strike me as a lot more...reasonable.

[+hikergps]

If it were my cache I would have to tell the non-log-signer:

 

 

NO SMILEY FOR YOU!

 

edit for weird text glitch

Edited August 13, 2006 by hikergps

[+Sagefox]

Look, the point I was trying to make above with AR "fuzzing" the line was the fact he drew the line very differently than the majority of others. Very specifically, where do you draw the line of when you can claim a find when you've not signed the logbook. See, that's what you get when you live in the world gray--you don't know if line you draw is acceptable to others. AR's situation illustrated this perfectly.

 

But you haven't addressed my point (again). We know what your point is. I've given it very fair consideration. I've deleted or changed all of my fuzzy finds because of your point of view. (That amounted to 1/4 of 1% of my total find count - 4 finds. There might be 2 or 3 three more but, rest assured, I will smite them down if I find them.)

 

We will be in "disconnect" on this until you give fair consideration to MY questions: If only 1 or 2% of all posted finds are fuzzy and if only 5% of cachers have a fuzzy find rate of greater than 2%, is that something to get worked up over and constantly make negative comments about? If the numbers are as low as I suggest then is there a real problem here?

 

If you don't agree with my numbers then tell us what you think the percentages are. But if you simply have zero tolerance for the gray areas of geocaching then you will ALWAYS have a problem. Gray will NEVER go away and no one, singly or in great numbers, will EVER eliminate gray areas. In the mean time negative comments only serve to make people feel bad and they do very little to solve YOUR problem.

[+ibycus]

I'd probably discuss finds and did not finds with the cacher. How you see finds, how you see did not finds. My guess is they are looking at the game totally different to how you look at it.

 

I for one wouldn't allow a find like that. If the cache isn't there, they didn't find it. It might not be there fault that they didn't find it, but they still didn't find it.

 

I'm all for allowing a find on a 'didn't sign the log' or found the confirmed remains of the cache container, or something like that, but they have to have found *something* and it doesn't sound like they did.

[+ibycus]

Can you tell me the damage to the hobby by actually firmly sticking by a few simple rules? You know, stuff like only posting a Found It log when you've signed the logbook.

 

Ya know, It never ceases to amaze me how those two things are so deeply interwoven with so many people. Personally I'll post a found log, when I ummmmm find the cache. Its got nothing to do with signing or not signing the log book. (that being said, if there is something stopping me signing the log, like not being able to reach the cache, or something like that, then I don't consider it found...)

[+Sagefox]

 

But (a continuation of my favorite rant), can you tell us what the actual damage is from fuzzy behavior?

 

Come back after you've wasted a bunch of your time searching for an extended period for a cache because it was "just found yesterday" and you later find out the cache was missing and it was one of the "fuzzy" loggers who posted the find. I bet you won't still think the behaviour "only hurts the cheaters" as many of their defenders like to claim.

 

Yes. This is a very popular comment when discussing fuzzy finds. But is it real problem? I've only heard it mentioned in the forums. I've never had anyone actually tell me this ever happened to them. In 1643 container cache attempts I've never seen it. I haven't read any complaints about this specific condition on any cache page I've examined. I have 50 dnf's where the container was missing and no one logged them as found thereby falsely encouraging my visit.

 

But I have read Found It logs where people disclose that they didn't actually find the container. I've seen that a lot but those fuzzy finds are not entrapment because the finder tells us they didn't find it. If we go after caches without reading the previous logs (which I do a lot) then we don't really have a beef if there is a false Found It posted and it says that they didn't actually find the container.

 

I don't doubt this has happened to many people and a few good examples have been given in the forums over the past few years. But, again. What are the numbers? How often does this happen to any one cacher?

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

I like shades of gray, they make for a nicer softer view of the world.

 

Yeah, we all know how you like a nice fuzzy view of the world. We also know where it got you. You drew the line in that gray area a lot differently than nearly anyone else and got spanked.

 

Knowing this, what would you encourage in others?

 

Um, actually, you don't know what the heck you are talking about.

 

You make up scenarios to fit your illusions.

 

I was fired for allowing someone access to my password to the private Reviewer forum. No access was made, but I did allow someone to have my password and did not change it until the next day.

 

That person was allowed to read and push the Approve button on four caches I was reviewing (I was traveling, and so logged in from that person's PC).

 

Months later I told another cacher about it, it was reported to Groundspeak, when asked I admitted it. Fired, end of story. Period. No other reason. You can quit coming up with baseless insinuatioins now.

 

DRR, Pocket Queries, cacher-friendly logging requirements, not a damg bit of that played into it. I am not ashamed of what happened and will not feel like the 'bad cacher' you want to cast me as, so quit using the fact that I was fired to try to belittle my ideas and behaviors.

 

I have never once been censured, warned or corrected by TPTB for anything I have said or done outside of that one event.

 

I encourage the behaviors I promote in my posts because I believe they are right and good.

 

Ed

[+GRANPA ALEX]

 

Ya know, It never ceases to amaze me how those two things are so deeply interwoven with so many people. Personally I'll post a found log, when I ummmmm find the cache. Its got nothing to do with signing or not signing the log book. (that being said, if there is something stopping me signing the log, like not being able to reach the cache, or something like that, then I don't consider it found...)

 

Methinks you have nailed the concept accurately; I wholeheartedly agree, especially when you added the last part, parenthetically . . . there are caches where the finding is the easy part & logging is the challenge, by design - signing is required and should/might be noted on the cache page.

[CoyoteRed]

But that was THAT topic. This topic is not the same as THAT topic.

 

Not as it relates to fuzzing the line. It is exactly the same topic--only a different circumstance. It illustrates perfectly what happens when you don't have a clear set of rules and push too far into that gray area.

 

But you haven't addressed my point (again).

 

Which was "...can you tell us what the actual damage is from fuzzy behavior?"

 

You are advocating fuzzy behavior.

 

Okay, so you had 1/4 of 1% of your finds were questionable. You might claim that is acceptable. (Yes, I know you went back and cleaned them up. I using a "previous you" as an example.) Next thing you know your 1/4 of 1% is another person's 1/2 of 1%. Then the next person thinks well if it's okay for them then his might come to 1% and so on. Next thing you know some person is the subject of this very forum and is outed as a cheater. The thing is, he was only doing what you did, only more. So, how many unearned finds are too many? Can you answer that?

 

So, what is the damage of living in the fuzzy world? It confuses newbies. It creates angst. It creates a bunch of "what ifs" and those become more "what ifs." It opens to the door where there are so many situations that could go one way or the other that no one can agree on what is the right solution. Sound familiar?

 

A clear cut rule eliminates this chaos. Folks know when they can do X and when they can't. It allows everyone to be on the same page playing the same music. No angst, no chaos, no questions.

[CoyoteRed]

I encourage the behaviors I promote in my posts because I believe they are right and good.

 

I was referring to you insistence for the record attempting team to sign the outside of the container. That decision baffles me, to this day, as to how you could have considered that acceptable. Additionally, I was referring to the fallout here in the forums.

 

How does this relate to living in a fuzzy world? I suppose you thought if you signed something then is was alright. Kind of outside the parameters of "sign the logbook."

[CoyoteRed]

Can you tell me the damage to the hobby by actually firmly sticking by a few simple rules? You know, stuff like only posting a Found It log when you've signed the logbook.

 

Ya know, It never ceases to amaze me how those two things are so deeply interwoven with so many people. Personally I'll post a found log, when I ummmmm find the cache. Its got nothing to do with signing or not signing the log book. (that being said, if there is something stopping me signing the log, like not being able to reach the cache, or something like that, then I don't consider it found...)

 

Umm... you will note in your own post, your own rule had to have some sort of gray area. Where exactly do you draw the line of what is "something stopping me signing the log, like not being able to reach the cache, or something like that?" Muggle standing on top of it? 30' up a tree? Too hot or too cold to get out of the car?

[+Harry Dolphin]

I encourage the behaviors I promote in my posts because I believe they are right and good.

 

I was referring to you insistence for the record attempting team to sign the outside of the container. That decision baffles me, to this day, as to how you could have considered that acceptable. Additionally, I was referring to the fallout here in the forums.

 

How does this relate to living in a fuzzy world? I suppose you thought if you signed something then is was alright. Kind of outside the parameters of "sign the logbook."

 

Sorry. I fail to see how this addresses OP's question.

The topic is Should a log be permitted on an archived, and removed cache?

[+Sagefox]

 

Which was "...can you tell us what the actual damage is from fuzzy behavior?"

 

You are advocating fuzzy behavior.

 

I don't believe I am advocating fuzzy behivior at all. I posted earlier in this topic that we should "carefully let fuzzy finders and awarders know that this behivior is incorrect". I do this almost 100% of the time because that is the correct way to influence cacher behavior.

 

Okay, so you had 1/4 of 1% of your finds were questionable... ...Next thing you know your 1/4 of 1% is another person's 1/2 of 1%. Then the next person thinks well if it's okay for them then his might come to 1% and so on. Next thing you know some person is the subject of this very forum and is outed as a cheater. The thing is, he was only doing what you did, only more.

 

That is speculation on your part and you might be correct but I don't really take that very seriously. I don't believe that a background level of fuzzyness begets critical mass. I think that your "outed" cheaters, those few that have more than 1 to 2% fuzzy finds, are part of my 5% category.

 

So, how many unearned finds are too many? Can you answer that?

 

Well, I suppose that more than 2% starts to get questionable and perhaps 20 to 30 total for finders with over 1000 finds may be too much. But what gets lost in this "black and white" logic is that there are often specific site conditions that prevent an absolute definition of what is acceptable. For instance, you state that signing the log is mandatory yet many reputable cachers believe that having the container in hand, and desirably, open constitutes a find. Signing the log is only proof of a find, not the actual find itself. And please don't misunderstand me on this, I see no reason why the log should not be signed but sometimes you can't get the container open or the log is unsignable.

 

So, what is the damage of living in the fuzzy world? It confuses newbies. It creates angst.

 

It is sad to me to think that a 1 or 2% background level of fuzzyness creates angst for people. Since this background level will always be present your angst will always be with you.

 

A clear cut rule eliminates this chaos. Folks know when they can do X and when they can't. It allows everyone to be on the same page playing the same music. No angst, no chaos, no questions.

 

This chaos? What chaos are you speaking of? I read a lot of geocache logs and my common caching area includes the three Pacific coast states. I haven't noticed any chaos. 2% fuzzyness is clearly not chaos.

 

Edit: clearing up quote commands. Also, I'm out of here for the evening but will check back later.

Edited August 14, 2006 by Team Sagefox

[CoyoteRed]

I encourage the behaviors I promote in my posts because I believe they are right and good.

 

I was referring to you insistence for the record attempting team to sign the outside of the container. That decision baffles me, to this day, as to how you could have considered that acceptable. Additionally, I was referring to the fallout here in the forums.

 

How does this relate to living in a fuzzy world? I suppose you thought if you signed something then is was alright. Kind of outside the parameters of "sign the logbook."

 

Sorry. I fail to see how this addresses OP's question.

The topic is Should a log be permitted on an archived, and removed cache?

 

Sorry, it was the end result of a long train of thought. Still, it has to do with "fuzzy rules." Some advocate the acceptance of fuzzy rules, many more reject it.

 

The OP's question was about claiming a find on a cache location. At least one advocated allowing finds on missing caches and so it goes--living in a fuzzy world.

[+briansnat]

Yes. This is a very popular comment when discussing fuzzy finds. But is it real problem? I've only heard it mentioned in the forums. I've never had anyone actually tell me this ever happened to them. In 1643 container cache attempts I've never seen it. I haven't read any complaints about this specific condition on any cache page I've examined. I have 50 dnf's where the container was missing and no one logged them as found thereby falsely encouraging my visit.

 

 

Well it happened to me and in that case the owner was allowing phony finds on his cache because it was missing and he couldn't be bothered taking care of it. I know another geocacher who was lured into a fruitless 100 mile round trip after someone logged a phony find.

 

But I have read Found It logs where people disclose that they didn't actually find the container. I've seen that a lot but those fuzzy finds are not entrapment because the finder tells us they didn't find it.

If we go after caches without reading the previous logs (which I do a lot) then we don't really have a beef if there is a false Found It posted and it says that they didn't actually find the container.

 

What about the people who use things like GSAK and filter out caches with recent DNFs? Or people like me who will just do a quick scan of the page for smileys and frownies and not read the text?

Edited August 14, 2006 by briansnat

[CoyoteRed]

Well, I suppose that more than 2% starts to get questionable and perhaps 20 to 30 total for finders with over 1000 finds may be too much.

 

Here lies the root of what I'm talking about. Your line might be 2 or 3%. Another person's is 5%. Yet another is 1%. Because some level is acceptable, everyone is going to have a different level. You think the 5% guy is cheating and the 1% guy think you both are cheating. Could the community agree on what amount of unearned finds is acceptable? I don't think so.

 

Let's just say someone decrees 2% of your find total can be unearned and that is accepted. How long do you think it would be before folks would start simply logging bogus logs simply to have that 2% acceptable level? Remember, it's unearned--they didn't even go looking for it.

 

I guess then we'd have to define "unearned."

[+Mudfrog]

Of course geocaching has shades of gray. There are also different ways of playing our game with the diversity sometimes making things more fun.

 

But, how can there be a shade of gray or different way of playing when it comes to logging a find on a cache? You either found it and signed the logbook or you didn't. There is no inbetween. Why is this so hard to understand???

 

The OP's question question was should he or shouldn't he allow the find. The answer is easy as there's certainly no gray area here!

[+ibycus]

Can you tell me the damage to the hobby by actually firmly sticking by a few simple rules? You know, stuff like only posting a Found It log when you've signed the logbook.

 

Ya know, It never ceases to amaze me how those two things are so deeply interwoven with so many people. Personally I'll post a found log, when I ummmmm find the cache. Its got nothing to do with signing or not signing the log book. (that being said, if there is something stopping me signing the log, like not being able to reach the cache, or something like that, then I don't consider it found...)

 

Umm... you will note in your own post, your own rule had to have some sort of gray area. Where exactly do you draw the line of what is "something stopping me signing the log, like not being able to reach the cache, or something like that?" Muggle standing on top of it? 30' up a tree? Too hot or too cold to get out of the car?

 

Well to put is simply, if I think I've found it, then I've found it. If the hider disagrees with me, well fine, I don't really care. I'm not in it for the smileys. More or less it translates to if I can touch it then I found it (although I admit this isn't entirely the exact line, if its a locked cache, and I don't have the key, then I still don't call it found).

 

I'm not caching for anyone but myself, so I really don't care. If I find it, and the hider disagrees with me, then I may go back and jump through a few hoops, or a may not (likely only if I'm in the area). Depends on my mood. I've never had one of my finds questioned.

 

(actually it is worth noting that even having your signature in the log doesn't put your find beyond question, there was a case around here where a cacher was accused of 'cheating' even though his name was known to be in all the log books he claimed to have found

[+thedeadpirate]

I can't believe we're having this discussion. Is there no such thing as common sense anymore?

 

Isn't find a location without a cache Waymarking? I thought that to be considered a geocache you needed at a minimum a container and log.

 

If the cache was pulled/missing and archived, then at best a waymark was found, not a cache.

[+IV_Warrior]

I can't believe we're having this discussion. Is there no such thing as common sense anymore?

 

No, there isn't. Or, at least it isn't in common supply.

[+Sagefox]

Well it happened to me and in that case the owner was allowing phony finds on his cache because it was missing and he couldn't be bothered taking care of it. I know another geocacher who was lured into a fruitless 100 mile round trip after someone logged a phony find.

 

O.K. That's two you know of in your five years of experience. Which is exactly my point - I suspect this is an infrequent occurrence. It's more of a pet peeve than a systemic problem.

 

Please don't get me wrong on this. I'm not saying the behavior is o.k. My point is that this stuff is getting blown out of proportion.

 

What about the people who use things like GSAK and filter out caches with recent DNFs? Or people like me who will just do a quick scan of the page for smileys and frownies and not read the text?

 

Your point is a good one. I hope you don't think I am defending the behavior because I am not. If someone doesn't find one of find my containers and then posts a Found log I request that they change the log to a dnf or note. If they don't make that change then I delete the find. That happened once in 2005 and twice this year. Not exactly earthshaking. Two were simple mistakes and one was someone who felt they deserved a find for their effort even though the container was actually in place.

 

As for the GSAK or quick scan, if it happened six times a year for me I might get steamed. But once in five years is not an indication that major damage is being done. People that drive 100 miles, or more, for caching usually have several other caches in their pda or printouts so a dnf is just part of a another day of caching. When a long hike or drive is involved for one cache people usually will read the last five cache logs. Most often the false finds will reveal themselves in the logs, clearly or subtly.

[+Sagefox]

Let's just say someone decrees 2% of your find total can be unearned and that is accepted. How long do you think it would be before folks would start simply logging bogus logs simply to have that 2% acceptable level? Remember, it's unearned--they didn't even go looking for it.

 

I already answered that question.

 

Lets assume, for the moment, that the practice of posting questionable finds cannot be completely eliminated but maybe we can keep it down to a constant 1 or 2%. Wouldn't that assumption indicate that any effort toward 100% elimination would be unrealistic and a waste of time.

 

I think it is best not to worry about what happens 1 or 2% of the time. Show me that there is a real problem here and I'll get on board for working on a plan that might help bring the rate back down to a acceptable level.