what would you do?

[+Sagefox]

OP's question is the real root of what this is all about. He asked if he should allow a false find. Only a few here, if any, will debate that the false find should be allowed. My earlier suggestion is that the correct way to deal with this problem is to "carefully tell finders that the behavior is not appropriate". We could also send a note to the cache owner, if they are still active, and "carefully" suggest that false finds diminish the effort of actual finders. This is the most effective way I can think of to spread the word. Now expierence tells us that people often don't take this suggestion well but maybe we have to work more on the "carefully" part. This is not by any means a solution.

 

Who has other suggestions? Ones that are more substantive than complaining about a problem we don't even know exists and berating people because, most often, their actions are misinterpreted?

[+briansnat]

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.

 

 

I've seen other examples over the years, those are just two that came immediately to mind. Anyway, its irrelevant if it happens once, or thousands of times, it isn't right to screw with your fellow geocachers. When you log a "found it" you are essentially telling other geocachers the cache is there. If it really isn't, that can and has affected other geocachers.

 

What really gets me is that there are some here who defend dishonesty. What is so hard about being truthful with your logs?

[CoyoteRed]

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.

 

It's a waste of time to indicate it's unacceptable to post unearned finds?

 

We're not talking about eliminating mistakes like selecting the wrong option. We're talking about purposefully indicating a find when they knew they didn't find a cache. In this thread, it's not even about not signing the logbook, but the cache wasn't even there to be found.

 

We're not talking about chasing down "the evil cheaters."

 

There is absolutely no effort in the opinion it is not okay to falsify a find. None.

[+wimseyguy]

I've been guilty of using old data and searching for caches that turned out to be archived.

If the cache was there, and the owner simply hasn't picked up the bits, I sign the log and post my find.

If the cache wasn't there, I still post my DNF's. After all I still looked and didn't find it.

 

In this case since they didn't find the cache and didn't sign the log they shouldn't claim a find, but the OP should certainly offer them to chance to log a DNF.

Edited August 14, 2006 by wimseyguy

[+Mudfrog]

OP's question is the real root of what this is all about. He asked if he should allow a false find. Only a few here, if any, will debate that the false find should be allowed. My earlier suggestion is that the correct way to deal with this problem is to "carefully tell finders that the behavior is not appropriate". We could also send a note to the cache owner, if they are still active, and "carefully" suggest that false finds diminish the effort of actual finders. This is the most effective way I can think of to spread the word. Now expierence tells us that people often don't take this suggestion well but maybe we have to work more on the "carefully" part. This is not by any means a solution.

 

Who has other suggestions? Ones that are more substantive than complaining about a problem we don't even know exists and berating people because, most often, their actions are misinterpreted?

 

The fact that there was even an email sent to the OP is mindboggling to me. I'm really not trying to berate anyone here but what can possibly be the reason why some people think that this could be a "find"? I really am trying to understand how there can be any debate on this at all. The replies,,,, "It doesn't hurt anything" or that "it only happens once every 5 billion times", doesn't answer a legitimate question and neither of these gives anyone the right to lie about finding a cache!

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

OP's question is the real root of what this is all about. He asked if he should allow a false find. Only a few here, if any, will debate that the false find should be allowed. My earlier suggestion is that the correct way to deal with this problem is to "carefully tell finders that the behavior is not appropriate". We could also send a note to the cache owner, if they are still active, and "carefully" suggest that false finds diminish the effort of actual finders. This is the most effective way I can think of to spread the word. Now expierence tells us that people often don't take this suggestion well but maybe we have to work more on the "carefully" part. This is not by any means a solution.

 

Who has other suggestions? Ones that are more substantive than complaining about a problem we don't even know exists and berating people because, most often, their actions are misinterpreted?

 

The fact that there was even an email sent to the OP is mindboggling to me. I'm really not trying to berate anyone here but what can possibly be the reason why some people think that this could be a "find"? I really am trying to understand how there can be any debate on this at all. The replies,,,, "It doesn't hurt anything" or that "it only happens once every 5 billion times", doesn't answer a legitimate question and neither of these gives anyone the right to lie about finding a cache!

 

I don't think anyone is saying it is okay o log a find on the average DNF.

 

I and others have mentioned rare extenuating circumstances where the cache owner might allow a find log on an unfound cache - I won't repeat them, read the thread, but do believe that there can be exceptions.

 

That logic is twisted by some, for the purposes of this thread at least, to mean 'some folks think it's okay to log something they didn't find' as a generaity.

 

I think that all of us that have said "log a DNF" gave carefully controlled scenarios, exceptions, where we believe it to be okay.

 

Most of the hysteria that feeds these threads is due to an incomplete reading of the posts or to an intentional skewing of words to fit an individual's argument.

[+Sagefox]

Most of the hysteria that feeds these threads is due to an incomplete reading of the posts or to an intentional skewing of words to fit an individual's argument.

 

Exactly!

[+GeoBlank]

That is why Travel Bugs are sweet. You need to code to get the credit.

 

I would support that in caches also.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

That is why Travel Bugs are sweet. You need to code to get the credit.

 

I would support that in caches also.

 

Fortunately code caches, where you have to submit a code to claim the cache, are forbidden (I think).

 

And the distribution of TB and Geocoin number lists is FAR more prevelant than logging caches that weren't found!

Edited August 14, 2006 by TheAlabamaRambler

[+briansnat]

That is why Travel Bugs are sweet. You need to code to get the credit.

 

I would support that in caches also.

 

People have been known to share TB codes so they can log them without finding them. I'm sure they will do the same thing with cache codes.

 

Fortunately code caches, where you have to submit a code to claim the cache, are forbidden (I think).

 

They aren't forbidden. Codeword only caches are, but as long as there is a logbook in the cache there is nothing keeping the owner from requiring a codeword as a requirement for logging a find.

Edited August 14, 2006 by briansnat

[+Mudfrog]

I think that all of us that have said "log a DNF" gave carefully controlled scenarios, exceptions, where we believe it to be okay.

 

I've seen these scenarios.

 

Examples:

 

A person found the exact spot but no cache, even took pictures of it, so the owner tells them to log a find because they see they are in the right place.

 

A person finds a piece of the cache (or they think they have) but no logbook, even so, the owner tells them they can have the find.

 

A person sees the cache (at least they think they do) but can't reach it for whatever reason, the owner gives them the find.

 

Oh, and this one:

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.

 

You can come up with scenario after scenario,,, but the fact remains, none of these people found the cache!

[+Markwell]

From May of 2006 - and note that the thread was eventually locked...

================================

 

For example, the community already generally agrees that entirely ficititious logs are not acceptable. We also agree that logging finds on your own caches is bad form.

 

But beyond that, there is a gray area. Next in line comes logging a cache as a find because you couldn't find it but you tried hard. Then comes logging a find on an archived cache on this site because you found a cache listed on another site. Then comes logging a missing cache as a find if you replace the container with a new one. Then comes logging a missing cache as a find if the owner says it is OK. Then comes logging additional finds on a cache if the owner gives you a "bonus" find for something else. Then comes logging pocket caches. Then comes logging multiple finds at an event. Then comes logging multiple finds on a cache that has moved. Finally comes logging a cache found by a group as a find for each member of the group.

Wow. That was such a cool post, I thought it deserved its own graphic.

 

...and my respect for people who do it is diminished considerably.

...but if other people do so it doesn't affect my respect for them.

Not to detract from this great post, but my respect for a person, even in the Geocaching world, is not dependent on their find count or the list of caches they've found or not found. When I see a find count, I go, "Hmmm. Isn't that interesting," and then move on. If it's a log on a cache the ONLY bearing the person's find count would mean to me is how reliable their DNF is. If a person has found 5,107 caches and they log a DNF on a cache that is a difficulty 1, I would think that cache is missing. In the forums, a person's find count usually doesn't enter into how I respond. Most of the people I have conversations with, I couldn't tell you their find count.

 

I posted in the other forum, and from the quotes above, some of this might be repeats from this lengthy thread, but I'll say my couple of quips here:

How can you cheat when nobody wins? Did I miss the prize?

...everyone should do what they think is right and STOP worrying about what the other guy is doing.

I would also add that cachers should probably stop worrying about how others feel regarding what they are doing.

 

Edited for poor formatting

Edited August 14, 2006 by Markwell

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

 

For example, the community already generally agrees that:

 

Entirely ficititious logs are not acceptable.

 

We also agree that logging finds on your own caches is bad form.

 

But beyond that, there is a gray area.

1. Next in line comes logging a cache as a find because you couldn't find it but you tried hard.

2. Then comes logging a find on an archived cache on this site because you found a cache listed on another site.

3. Then comes logging a missing cache as a find if you replace the container with a new one.

4. Then comes logging a missing cache as a find if the owner says it is OK.

5. Then comes logging additional finds on a cache if the owner gives you a "bonus" find for something else.

6. Then comes logging pocket caches.

7. Then comes logging multiple finds at an event.

8. Then comes logging multiple finds on a cache that has moved.

9. Finally comes logging a cache found by a group as a find for each member of the group.

 

2-9 work for me and match the 'norm' for the geocachers I have cached with.

 

Thanks for finding that post, Markwell!

[+Sagefox]

But beyond that, there is a gray area.

1. Next in line comes logging a cache as a find because you couldn't find it but you tried hard.

2. Then comes logging a find on an archived cache on this site because you found a cache listed on another site.

3. Then comes logging a missing cache as a find if you replace the container with a new one.

4. Then comes logging a missing cache as a find if the owner says it is OK.

5. Then comes logging additional finds on a cache if the owner gives you a "bonus" find for something else.

6. Then comes logging pocket caches.

7. Then comes logging multiple finds at an event.

8. Then comes logging multiple finds on a cache that has moved.

9. Finally comes logging a cache found by a group as a find for each member of the group.[/size]

 

The logic in my little pea brain says:

 

9 is not gray at all, it clearly qualifies as a find.

 

8 doesn't bother me if the container is new and the site has moved substantially so as to create a new find condition. It should have been archived and re-listed but it was not. No big deal. I don't think I would log that today but I don't care if others do.

 

3 doesn't bother me and it should really be up near 8 or 9. Not much need to discuss it - it clearly is in the gray.

 

The rest are not gray to me at all and I think they belong over on the dark side with the emperor.

 

(I know these conditions have been discussed many times before but its been added to this topic, its not too far off topic and there are always new people reading the forums.)

Edited August 15, 2006 by Team Sagefox

[CoyoteRed]

2. Then comes logging a find on an archived cache on this site because you found a cache listed on another site.

3. Then comes logging a missing cache as a find if you replace the container with a new one.

4. Then comes logging a missing cache as a find if the owner says it is OK.

5. Then comes logging additional finds on a cache if the owner gives you a "bonus" find for something else.

6. Then comes logging pocket caches.

7. Then comes logging multiple finds at an event.

8. Then comes logging multiple finds on a cache that has moved.

9. Finally comes logging a cache found by a group as a find for each member of the group.

 

2-9 work for me and match the 'norm' for the geocachers I have cached with.

 

I and others have mentioned rare extenuating circumstances where the cache owner might allow a find log on an unfound cache...

 

Most of the hysteria that feeds these threads is due to an incomplete reading of the posts or to an intentional skewing of words to fit an individual's argument.

[+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

 

I would like to apologize for the ill conceived attempt to hijack this thread. I even thought CR might agree with me since he often posts that PQs should indicated which cache have been recently archived . I did give some thought to why someone would want to post a smiley if they discovered that they had spent time looking for an archived cache. I am not saying that they should get a smiley, only that I can understand someone feeling that they spent time looking for cache that wasn't there and should get some sort of credit for it.

 

I personally feel that logging a DNF gives me credit in a case like this. That's why if I were briansnat's friend and drove 250 miles too look for a cache that wasn't there because someone claimed a find for finding the spot where the cache might have been hidden, I would log a DNF and tell the story. I might even use the log to vent my anger at the person that made me spend $30 on gas. Boy, DNF logs can make all those disappointing caching experiences worth it. Of course if I wound up driving 250 miles to find a great area with several other caches and a chance to go caching with my friend briansnat I might even forget the $30. After all that's only one year's subscription to Geocaching.com

[+Sagefox]

 

2-9 work for me and match the 'norm' for the geocachers I have cached with.

 

2 through 9 match the "norm" for how many geocachers?

 

I'm interested in your opinion on this in my quest to find out if there are a significant amount of people that log finds for 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7?

 

In your experience do you think that more than 5% of all geocachers in your caching areas have logged more than 2% of their total finds for these categories?

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

tozainamboku wrote

I did give some thought to why someone would want to post a smiley if they discovered that they had spent time looking for an archived cache. I am not saying that they should get a smiley, only that I can understand someone feeling that they spent time looking for cache that wasn't there and should get some sort of credit for it.

 

Nope, I still don't buy this one. No smiley for you! Bad data IS frustrating, but that's the breaks. This reminds me of cache I did as a raw newbie - nothing but coords in an eTrex Yellow, I went to the site and searched literally for hours, left no stone unturned, got home, looked it up, it's a virtual, on a sign I had searched thouroughly but not read! Bad info, waste of time, but no smiley.

 

 

2-9 work for me and match the 'norm' for the geocachers I have cached with.

 

2 through 9 match the "norm" for how many geocachers?

 

I'm interested in your opinion on this in my quest to find out if there are a significant amount of people that log finds for 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7?

 

In your experience do you think that more than 5% of all geocachers in your caching areas have logged more than 2% of their total finds for these categories?

 

Short answer, yes. To pull a number out of the air (but one I believe to be pretty accurate), I think I can safely say that I have cached with 300+ people, and can further say that 80% of them have logged caches as described in that list.

 

Caveats:

To answer your question credibly you have to know something of my history in the game - I hope this isn't seen as too far off topic.

 

I started, I think, in August '03 and learned the game like most everyone else - on my own. Get coords, find the cache, trade something, sign the cache log, log it online. Simple and clear.

 

With somewhere around 100 caches found I attended Alabama's first geocacher get-together, and from that a loose group of us started caching together, beginning what would become today's Alabama Geocachers Association (AGA) with over 1000 members.

 

At that time almost all Alabama caches were large traditionals, I don't even recall seeing a micro that first year. So, most were off in the woods somewhere.

 

I am old, fat and handicapped. I chose Geocaching as a physical therapy to help me recover from losing a leg in '99 and breaking my neck in '02. I can't wear a prosthesis (artificial leg) so I hike on crutches. While geocaching is a great sport for me, being off climbing mountains alone on crutches isn't the smartest thing I could do.

 

So, as the AGA grew and I met new geopals, I gradually stopped hiking alone and started geocaching with friends, sometimes one friend, sometimes a group of 10 or more.

 

I joined and started attending events with several surrounding state's geocaching clubs - Louissianna, Georgia, Mississippi, Tennessee, and made lots of group trips, cache runs lasting hours, even weeks! Sometimes just for regular caching, sometimes for numbers runs, sometimes no caching at all, just a bunch of gecaching friends camping out.

 

I got to see the proliferation of micros. Played the Pocket Cache game. Found every sort of cache under the sun.

 

So, I got to see all styles and methods of geocaching. Different areas cache differently, depending on the styles of the strongest geocaching personality in that area, so I have cached with ultra-conservatives to the liberal.

 

I got involved in competitive caching, Cacheleague.com, where 10 teams of 10 competed nation-wide for numbers. We won First Place Team and Highest Team Day the first year, took second place the next year.

 

I got sort of a reputation as a fun guy to cache with, and friends and newbies alike would hook up with me and go off to Nashville, Chattanooga or Atlanta for a weekend run, literally cache around the clock, get 100 caches a day.

 

As my name became known in the Southeast I cached with more and more people. I became a phone-a-friend for cachers in need of a clue all over the Southeast looking for caches I had done.

 

I started attending events, meeting cachers, caching in groups of all sizes with all sorts of stated goalls - a nice day, some hard puzzles, take 'em as they come on the nearest list, lotsa caches, whatever.

 

I attend and host a lot of events, from Louissianna to Massachussetts.

 

Somewhere along that timeline I quit logging my finds, numbers being the least part of the game for me, so I can only claim 1850 or so finds. In reality my name is now in at least 3500 caches in 24 states, and almost all of those gotten while caching with others.

 

Then I was honored to be invited to be a Groundspeak Volunteer Reviewer, and during that year gained further insight into the game and its players.

 

So, to make a long story short (I know, too late), I do have more experience with what a lot of cachers do than does most folk. I have cached with everyone from newbies to some of the most experienced and respected, from their first cache to caching with the game's top numbers cachers.

 

Does all that make me an 'expert' geocacher, no, but it does give me more insight into what more people do than the average geocacher has.

 

With those bona fides, for what they are worth, established, I will try to answer your question.

 

Not being a statistician I can't quote hard numbers and percentages - these are just things I have observed and generalities I feel safe in making based on real personal experience:

 

1. Logging a cache as a find because you couldn't find it but you tried hard.

Almost never acceptable. I have seen it happen, but very rarely. Certainly not an accepted practice in anyone's book

 

2. Logging a find on an archived cache on this site because you found a cache listed on another site.

Fairly common. Folks that want to maintain their find count want it in one place. They did find and sign a cache. Percentage? I think most of the folks I have cached with would accept this practice.

 

3. Logging a missing cache as a find if you replace the container with a new one.

Acceptable by almost 100% of the folks I have cached with, and happens almost every cache run.

 

4. Logging a missing cache as a find if the owner says it is OK.

Acceptable to most everyone I have cached with. I know some that will verify the cache is gone wth the owner but not log it, but very few. This has happened at several events that featured cache runs, where a cache goes missing and cachers that spent time hunting it are told to log it.

 

5. Logging additional finds on a cache if the owner gives you a "bonus" find for something else.

Certainly not common, but I have seen it done for various reasons.

 

6. Logging pocket caches.

This was hugely popular for a while, and I don't know of many people that did not log them.

 

7. Logging multiple finds at an event.

So common as to be a standard practice.

 

8. Logging multiple finds on a cache that has moved.

Again, pretty much standard practice.

 

9. Logging a cache found by a group as a find for each member of the group.

Standard cache run and group-caching practice.

 

So, what does that all mean? Basically it means that if the strict find a cache, sign the paper log, log it online no exceptions practice being promoted here is accepted as the 'rules' of geocaching, every single individual I have cached with, hundreds of them all over the country, maintains bogus numbers in one way or another!

 

This is why I have been so vocal in these forums on this issue.

 

I don't care for labels, so won't use the Puritan appellation, but I do think we have a small vocal group of conservatives here in the forums as compared to the much larger, quieter and more liberal folks I have personally cached with.

 

My experience has been that most geocachers I have cached with are liberals by the standard of that list.

 

I believe then, based on my experiences, that I am safe in extending those small experience out to the larger geocaching public.

 

Your mileage may vary!

Ed

[+AuntieWeasel]

Your mileage may vary!

Yes, mine certainly does. All of the cachers I've met would be conservative per that list. Or, if they were not, they wouldn't admit it. People with suspected dodgy habits are the subject of much gossip.

 

Everyone would log their own finds, and a group find. And we have a grandfathered traveling cache that shows up to local meets which most people log each time (it's re-hidden in a new spot). An archived cache would definitely be a find if you find it.

 

The rest of it absolutely wouldn't pass muster in my area, per the cachers I've met personally.

[+briansnat]

 

2-9 work for me and match the 'norm' for the geocachers I have cached with.

 

2 through 9 match the "norm" for how many geocachers?

 

I'm interested in your opinion on this in my quest to find out if there are a significant amount of people that log finds for 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7?

 

In your experience do you think that more than 5% of all geocachers in your caching areas have logged more than 2% of their total finds for these categories?

 

Of all of those, only 9 is considered common and acceptable in my area. 2-8 range from rare to unheard of. I guess a lot of this stuff is a regional thing.

[+Isonzo Karst]

I think you're right Brainsnat (you go boy!) about the regional nature of logging.

 

Although pocket caches were a regular feature of events here in Florida, multi logging of events is not - I've actually never seen it here.

 

I'd never heard of logging a Navicache or Terracache here, so I'm guessing that's not the norm either.

 

Darn few "bonus" smiley caches around (if by that you mean log a second smiley for jumping through hoop A), though if there were one, I'd guess many would jump & log the bonus smiley.

 

I've been campaigning against the "allow a smiley on a missing cache" for a couple of years - I understand the cache owner's discomfort at the misfortune of the cache hunter and their wish to make it right - but it messes up the ability to determine if caches are really present (oh yeah, and it's stoooopid). It's a minority practice (or maybe I have my rose-colored glasses on).

 

Logging a find on a cache you replaced - yep - though the practice of replacing a missing cache is generally limited to the group of regular event attendees who have exchanged cellphone numbers. A minority of cachers in any area.

[+James Lobb]

i would say no to him becuase

 

1. did not sign the log

2. did not see the cache

3. did not trade anything

4. went for a cache thats been archived for over a month

 

it might sound harsh to the cacher but if its been archived then its no longer a cache its a memory.

 

 

(edit for spelling)

Edited August 15, 2006 by James Lobb

[CoyoteRed]

Your mileage may vary!

Yes, mine certainly does. All of the cachers I've met would be conservative per that list. Or, if they were not, they wouldn't admit it. People with suspected dodgy habits are the subject of much gossip.

 

Same here. I guess it's who you hang with.

[+tozainamboku]

I guess it depends on what you think the online logs are for. Clearly there is no formal competition - he who has the highest find count does not win . My guess is that some people want find counts to be roughly comparable. If you look at someone else's find count you don't have to wonder about which of 1-9 that person claimed as a find. Of course, then someone will look at someone else's high find count and say that since that person only hunts 1/1 cache it does mean anything. Other people consider it a personal record of caches they found. If they chose to claim finds on 2, 4, and 7 why should anyone else care? There may be some times when there are consequence to logging a find where a more conservative cacher would not. For example, briansnat has a friend who might waste gasoline driving to find a cache that is not there . But for the most part people who claim finds for any of the above reasons are doing what they feel is right. They are having fun with what is only a game. Since there is no competition there is no point in cheating in inflate their finds. Their numbers simply reflect what they feel their number should reflect.

 

The puritans have a bit of an advantage. In order to log a non-puritan found it log, both the finder and the cache owner must agree. Sometimes you will see non-puritans claim a find one of their own caches so their find count is right if the feel a puritan owner has unjustly deleted a log. My personal preference is to keep my own count rather than log a find that will get the puritans even more upset.

[+QuesterMark]

Recently garyj97 and I found a spot where a cache should be, including the glue or caulk that held the container. We logged it as a Needs Maintenance. We uploaded a photo and the owner has temporarily disabled the cache until he can fix it. There was no log to sign, and no container to put a new, signed, log into, therefore it's not a good find.

 

Did everyone see the period at the end of the previous sentence?

[+Zzyzx Road]

Well since I had a similar, but not the same, kind of situation, I hope there aren't any more repurcussions to the cache owners involved in my requests...

One owner in Nevada allowed my 12yr old to log a find on ONE archived cache, that she actually found for ME back in April. My daughter didn't have her own account yet, only because I wanted to make sure she would stick with it. That WASN"T the only cache we found that trip (we are from California), but that was the only one she wanted to see if she could log online at the same date I did my log, because she really did find it. She isn't asking for the active caches to be given to her - she will go back and physically sign those herself - and that was her decision too! Unfortunately, by the time we make our trip again this next April, there may be even more archived.

This cache owner was nice enough to allow her to log that one cache find. Since then someone has sent the cache owner a nasty email and mean accusing log to that Archived cache about allowing that kind of action. That "cacher", who has NO idea of our emails to each other, had no business judging this one log transaction or attacking the owner. If the OWNER is willing to allow a log for a person then it is the OWNER'S discretion. Obviously this owner is aware and active, and also quite nice in my book! If she hadn't wanted to allow the log, it would still have been ok to my daughter.

If we had not been there to sign the log the first time, I wouldn't ask for permission to sign it anyway! I have gone to look for caches that are archived (being a dumb blonde, and forgetting to update GSAK that week!) and only found that out when I went to log the thing! We looked for one for quite a while, and after logging a DNF (boy did I feel stupid!) I got an email from the owner that it had been archived for quite a while. He didn't offer a find and I didn't ask. I just felt really silly looking for something based on old info!

[+briansnat]

The puritans have a bit of an advantage. In order to log a non-puritan found it log, both the finder and the cache owner must agree. Sometimes you will see non-puritans claim a find one of their own caches so their find count is right if the feel a puritan owner has unjustly deleted a log. My personal preference is to keep my own count rather than log a find that will get the puritans even more upset.

 

Actually I think the traditionalists are at a distinct disadvantage in your argument. They actually have to go out and find geocaches.

Edited August 15, 2006 by briansnat

[Moun10Bike]

 

2-9 work for me and match the 'norm' for the geocachers I have cached with.

 

2 through 9 match the "norm" for how many geocachers?

 

I'm interested in your opinion on this in my quest to find out if there are a significant amount of people that log finds for 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7?

 

In your experience do you think that more than 5% of all geocachers in your caching areas have logged more than 2% of their total finds for these categories?

 

Of all of those, only 9 is considered common and acceptable in my area. 2-8 range from rare to unheard of. I guess a lot of this stuff is a regional thing.

 

Ditto for the Pacific Northwest - with the exception of 9, those behaviors are uncommon and generally frowned upon here.

 

EDIT: Clarifying my ditto.

Edited August 15, 2006 by Moun10Bike

[+tozainamboku]

The puritans have a bit of an advantage. In order to log a non-puritan found it log, both the finder and the cache owner must agree. Sometimes you will see non-puritans claim a find one of their own caches so their find count is right if the feel a puritan owner has unjustly deleted a log. My personal preference is to keep my own count rather than log a find that will get the puritans even more upset.

 

Actually I think the traditionalists are at a distinct disadvantage in your argument. They actually have to go out and find geocaches.

 

Oops! After pointing out in my first paragraph that there is no competition I used the word advantage in the second paragraph. I'm sorry that briansnat and the other traditionalists are at a disadvangtage in getting those valuable smilies because they only log caches they found. My point was that outside of a few people that really don't get it, most people log finds on caches that they believe that they can count as a find. My comment that puritans have a advantage means that both the finder and cache owner have to agree to allow a log other than what a pure traditionalist would allow. Not only is a puritan cache owner within his rights to delete your log, but a radical cache owner can't make a puritan log a cache that he obviously found but had forgotten his pencil.

[+niraD]

3. Logging a missing cache as a find if you replace the container with a new one.

Acceptable by almost 100% of the folks I have cached with, and happens almost every cache run.

I really don't get this one, and it isn't about the numbers. I just don't see how such "replacement" caches help. How do you know it's missing? Maybe you just didn't find it, and your "replacement" cache will interfere with others finding the real hide. Or maybe the reviewers were about to archive it, but now your geolitter is left behind where before there was nothing.

 

If you've found the cache previously, if you know what kind of replacement container to hide, if you know where and how to hide it, if you've checked to make sure the container hasn't simply migrated, if you know the owner is still maintaining the cache, then it might make sense to save the cache owner a trip by replacing a missing cache.

 

But "replacing" a cache that you just couldn't find?

[+niraD]

a radical cache owner can't make a puritan log a cache that he obviously found but had forgotten his pencil.

FWIW, I've seen logs signed very effectively (and creatively) by cachers who didn't have a pen or pencil.

[+ibycus]

3. Logging a missing cache as a find if you replace the container with a new one.

Acceptable by almost 100% of the folks I have cached with, and happens almost every cache run.

I really don't get this one, and it isn't about the numbers. I just don't see how such "replacement" caches help. How do you know it's missing? Maybe you just didn't find it, and your "replacement" cache will interfere with others finding the real hide. Or maybe the reviewers were about to archive it, but now your geolitter is left behind where before there was nothing.

 

If you've found the cache previously, if you know what kind of replacement container to hide, if you know where and how to hide it, if you've checked to make sure the container hasn't simply migrated, if you know the owner is still maintaining the cache, then it might make sense to save the cache owner a trip by replacing a missing cache.

 

But "replacing" a cache that you just couldn't find?

 

Sometimes, its very very very obvious that a cache is missing. If I had a suitably stocked, suitably sized similar container on me, I might be tempted to replace the container for the cache owner (and then watch the cache and do the maintenance myself if the cache owner seemed to be AWOL). Don't *think* I'd log it as a find though. (exact circumstances might dictate a slightly different response, it would be circumstance specific).

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

3. Logging a missing cache as a find if you replace the container with a new one.

Acceptable by almost 100% of the folks I have cached with, and happens almost every cache run.

I really don't get this one, and it isn't about the numbers. I just don't see how such "replacement" caches help. How do you know it's missing? Maybe you just didn't find it, and your "replacement" cache will interfere with others finding the real hide. Or maybe the reviewers were about to archive it, but now your geolitter is left behind where before there was nothing.

 

If you've found the cache previously, if you know what kind of replacement container to hide, if you know where and how to hide it, if you've checked to make sure the container hasn't simply migrated, if you know the owner is still maintaining the cache, then it might make sense to save the cache owner a trip by replacing a missing cache.

 

But "replacing" a cache that you just couldn't find?

 

You are correct - I would not replace a cache on a mere DNF.

 

In my caching circle we pretty musch know each other, I have dozens of cacher's phone numbers, and if I don't know the owner I likely know somebody that does. So, on a DNF we'll try to call the owner or a trusted previous finder. If we have good information and reason to believe it missing we'll replace it.

 

When that happens it is expected that the owner will come check. If his cache is still in fact there he will pick up the one we left.

 

It's all about looking out for each other.

 

Ed

[CoyoteRed]

It's all about looking out for each other.

 

Sorry, I don't see it that way.

 

You already expect the owner to come and check on his cache. You didn't save him a trip. You do make him clean up your mess, though.

 

The only thing you've benefited is yourselves.

[+GreyingJay]

Sometimes, its very very very obvious that a cache is missing. If I had a suitably stocked, suitably sized similar container on me, I might be tempted to replace the container for the cache owner (and then watch the cache and do the maintenance myself if the cache owner seemed to be AWOL). Don't *think* I'd log it as a find though. (exact circumstances might dictate a slightly different response, it would be circumstance specific).

 

I agree. If I bring a replacement cache for one that had disappeared, and I put it into a hiding spot, why would I log a find? How, exactly, did I "find" a cache I hid myself?

Edited August 15, 2006 by GreyingJay

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Sounds to me like "Play it your way" is less of value than "Play it my way or be damned!".

 

I've explained how it works in my experience, explained my attitude towards logging learned from that experience... you've given your reasons why I and the folks that I've cached with suck.

 

Egos and holier than thou appetites have been fed.

 

Over and over.

 

I am not going to play your way, I don't like it. Too conservative.

 

You are not going to play my way, you don't like it. Too liberal

 

This horse is dead, it can't drag our wagon one more inch, let's stop beating it.

 

Ed

Edited August 15, 2006 by TheAlabamaRambler

[+niraD]

It's all about looking out for each other.

Well, I've seen cachers look out for each other, and that has included cachers replacing missing containers (when they had previously found the cache, knew how/where to hide the replacement, had checked that it hadn't just migrated, etc.). And I've left my share of replacement logs, stash notes, and ziplock bags. But IME, "replacement" containers left by those who didn't find the original container haven't really helped anyone.

 

[Edit: grammar]

Edited August 15, 2006 by niraD

[+ibycus]

Sometimes, its very very very obvious that a cache is missing. If I had a suitably stocked, suitably sized similar container on me, I might be tempted to replace the container for the cache owner (and then watch the cache and do the maintenance myself if the cache owner seemed to be AWOL). Don't *think* I'd log it as a find though. (exact circumstances might dictate a slightly different response, it would be circumstance specific).

 

I agree. If I bring a replacement cache for one that had disappeared, and I put it into a hiding spot, why would I log a find? How, exactly, did I "find" a cache I hid myself?

 

Been thinking about this since I wrote it, under what circumstances I might be tempted to log a find on a cache I replaced for the owner.

 

I think if it were a very difficult cache to get to, where the find is more about saying "Hey I made it" than it is about actually finding the cache at the end, I might be tempted to log it. Like this one. The cache when you get to it is very very obvious in a pile of rocks. The actual finding of the cache is such a minor part of the experience that if someone were willing to replace the cache for me, I wouldn't mind a 'find' log on it. (mind you if they got there, and there was no cache there, then I'd insist on a DNF...)

[+Happy Humphrey]

After having a quick read through this rambling thread, I've realised that I'm not really a geocacher after all. Not at heart, anyway - perhaps more of a treasure-hunter. I see the cache description as a challenge: "come and get your hands on this cache".

 

It's obvious (isn't it?) when the challenge has been fairly met. The cache is in hand: enough of it exists to be reasonably sure that I have the correct box and contents (although a few pieces lie in the undergrowth nearby). There's nothing to stop me signing the log book, although lack of a working pen means that my scratched mark doesn't really stand up as proof of visit - but in any case the paper is soggy, useless pulp. The treasure has been found, nevertheless.

 

Unlike the real world, which I've (all too briefly) put on hold during my search, there are no grey areas. Just like Howard Carter (and his team ) discovering Tutankhamen's tomb, getting your hands on the goods is what counts. Imagine Carter writing back to England, "Success! We have located the very area in which Tutankhamen's treasure is doubtless to be found! We shall now return in triumph". Um, no - where's the gold, Carter?

 

It appears that I'm in the majority, but there is a large minority who believe that many variations of NOT finding the cache constitute a find. Perhaps we should push for a "Pretty much found it, in our opinion" log to satisfy those that are happy with fuzzy finds (AKA false finds, IMO). I won't argue that my caching experience is significantly diminished by reading of false logs. But every time I read the likes of "Sent a photo of the cache site to the owner, who kindly allowed the find even though we didn't actually locate any box", it just disappoints me slightly and I think a tiny bit less of the game. Is that a good balance against the pleasure of the ones who get the smiley for just getting close to the cache?

 

HH

[+ibycus]

After having a quick read through this rambling thread, I've realised that I'm not really a geocacher after all. Not at heart, anyway - perhaps more of a treasure-hunter. I see the cache description as a challenge: "come and get your hands on this cache".

 

It's obvious (isn't it?) when the challenge has been fairly met. The cache is in hand: enough of it exists to be reasonably sure that I have the correct box and contents (although a few pieces lie in the undergrowth nearby). There's nothing to stop me signing the log book, although lack of a working pen means that my scratched mark doesn't really stand up as proof of visit - but in any case the paper is soggy, useless pulp. The treasure has been found, nevertheless.

 

Unlike the real world, which I've (all too briefly) put on hold during my search, there are no grey areas. Just like Howard Carter (and his team ) discovering Tutankhamen's tomb, getting your hands on the goods is what counts. Imagine Carter writing back to England, "Success! We have located the very area in which Tutankhamen's treasure is doubtless to be found! We shall now return in triumph". Um, no - where's the gold, Carter?

 

It appears that I'm in the majority, but there is a large minority who believe that many variations of NOT finding the cache constitute a find. Perhaps we should push for a "Pretty much found it, in our opinion" log to satisfy those that are happy with fuzzy finds (AKA false finds, IMO). I won't argue that my caching experience is significantly diminished by reading of false logs. But every time I read the likes of "Sent a photo of the cache site to the owner, who kindly allowed the find even though we didn't actually locate any box", it just disappoints me slightly and I think a tiny bit less of the game. Is that a good balance against the pleasure of the ones who get the smiley for just getting close to the cache?

 

HH

 

I think I'm pretty much with you as far as what constitutes a find, but let me just try to put you in someone elses shoes for a moment (borrowing your metaphor)

 

Imagine Carter discovers the tomb, *but* grave robbers have been there first, looted the tomb, and left most of the heiroglyphs in the tomb damaged almost beyond recognition. You can still tell it was a tomb, and its exactly where Tutankhamen's tomb is meant to be, and there is no other tomb within a reasonable radius.

 

Did he find the tomb? Some people will say yes he found the tomb, others will say "Well there is no way to tell that this is the right tomb, so no."

[+Happy Humphrey]

Imagine Carter discovers the tomb, *but* grave robbers have been there first, looted the tomb, and left most of the heiroglyphs in the tomb damaged almost beyond recognition. You can still tell it was a tomb, and its exactly where Tutankhamen's tomb is meant to be, and there is no other tomb within a reasonable radius.

 

Did he find the tomb? Some people will say yes he found the tomb, others will say "Well there is no way to tell that this is the right tomb, so no."

 

In your example, there's still some doubt. Could there be another tomb nearby? Was the information about the location simply wrong? The investigation would continue.

Therefore, no find - clearly, or else why wouldn't the searching end?

 

Had the hieroglyphs indicated that the tomb was the one sought, then it would have been a "find". Disappointing about the artefacts (cache contents) being muggled, but the tomb (cache) was definitely the one, as it has "Tutankhamen's tomb" written clearly in indelible ink (I mean, hieroglyphics...) on the plastic (erm, plaster).

No point in continuing the quest. The treasure has been found. All that remains is to log the find officially.

 

HH

[+Happy Humphrey]

The cache when you get to it is very very obvious in a pile of rocks. The actual finding of the cache is such a minor part of the experience that if someone were willing to replace the cache for me, I wouldn't mind a 'find' log on it. (mind you if they got there, and there was no cache there, then I'd insist on a DNF...)

Funnily enough, one of my caches has a suspicious pile of rocks with a plastic box hidden underneath, just a few feet off the GPS mark. Nearby (dead on the mark) is a carefully-concealed ammo box: the geocache....

 

HH

[+ibycus]

In your example, there's still some doubt. Could there be another tomb nearby? Was the information about the location simply wrong? The investigation would continue.

Therefore, no find - clearly, or else why wouldn't the searching end?

 

Had the hieroglyphs indicated that the tomb was the one sought, then it would have been a "find". Disappointing about the artefacts (cache contents) being muggled, but the tomb (cache) was definitely the one, as it has "Tutankhamen's tomb" written clearly in indelible ink (I mean, hieroglyphics...) on the plastic (erm, plaster).

No point in continuing the quest. The treasure has been found. All that remains is to log the find officially.

 

HH

 

But what if Carter *is* convinced that he found what he set out to find? He's stopped searching, and isn't going to be back. Other people might not believe that he found it, but he 'knows' he found it, does he report it?

[+Happy Humphrey]

But what if Carter *is* convinced that he found what he set out to find? He's stopped searching, and isn't going to be back. Other people might not believe that he found it, but he 'knows' he found it, does he report it?

As I was suggesting that it's fairly obvious when you've found a cache, in this metaphor it's fairly obvious to Carter that he can't be sure that it's the tomb - you specified that the evidence is not conclusive. If he gives up searching it's only because he can't be bothered to continue, as he suspects that further digging will be fruitless.

 

Just like we might give up when we find an empty, smashed and unidentifiable tupperware box near the cache site. And log a DNF, mentioning that the owner should check the cache.

 

HH

Edited August 15, 2006 by Happy Humphrey

[+Harry Dolphin]

I think that all of us that have said "log a DNF" gave carefully controlled scenarios, exceptions, where we believe it to be okay.

 

I've seen these scenarios.

 

Examples:

 

A person found the exact spot but no cache, even took pictures of it, so the owner tells them to log a find because they see they are in the right place.

 

A person finds a piece of the cache (or they think they have) but no logbook, even so, the owner tells them they can have the find.

 

A person sees the cache (at least they think they do) but can't reach it for whatever reason, the owner gives them the find.

 

Oh, and this one:

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.

 

You can come up with scenario after scenario,,, but the fact remains, none of these people found the cache!

 

One

Another

Dunno. Did I find these? No log book in either. One was archived, the other replaced. I think I found them.

 

I have been offered a find for a missing cache, and declined.

I know of one cache about 35 miles east that had a bonus find. The local reviewer did not think this appropriate. I found the bonus find, but never considered logging another find on it. That was for fun.

There was some controversy at a recent event. Someone replaced a venerable 'missing' cache, and logged a find on it. (This is one of the local classic caches.) The majority of the local cachers said "No. That's not a find.' The find was changed to a note.

I would never log a find on any cache more than once (except 'moving caches'. But those always get kidnapped by Pennsylvanians.) One cache, or one event = one find.

Pocket caches? Those aren't real caches.

[+Mudfrog]

3. Logging a missing cache as a find if you replace the container with a new one.

Acceptable by almost 100% of the folks I have cached with, and happens almost every cache run.

I really don't get this one, and it isn't about the numbers. I just don't see how such "replacement" caches help. How do you know it's missing? Maybe you just didn't find it, and your "replacement" cache will interfere with others finding the real hide. Or maybe the reviewers were about to archive it, but now your geolitter is left behind where before there was nothing.

 

If you've found the cache previously, if you know what kind of replacement container to hide, if you know where and how to hide it, if you've checked to make sure the container hasn't simply migrated, if you know the owner is still maintaining the cache, then it might make sense to save the cache owner a trip by replacing a missing cache.

 

But "replacing" a cache that you just couldn't find?

 

You are correct - I would not replace a cache on a mere DNF.

 

In my caching circle we pretty musch know each other, I have dozens of cacher's phone numbers, and if I don't know the owner I likely know somebody that does. So, on a DNF we'll try to call the owner or a trusted previous finder. If we have good information and reason to believe it missing we'll replace it.

 

When that happens it is expected that the owner will come check. If his cache is still in fact there he will pick up the one we left.

 

It's all about looking out for each other.

 

Ed

 

Alot of us try to help out fellow cachers with replacement of wet logbooks, drying out of wet containers, and every once in a great while, replacement of a faulty container. These are on found caches that need help though. It's a nice thought to want to help a cacher out by replacing his missing container but i don't think it is a good idea. It's a pretty sure bet that you aren't gonna hide a replacement like the owner did unless you have been to the cache before. It's the owner's responsibility to get this back going and if he doesn't want to mess with it, then it can be adopted or archived.

 

I do admit, the above i can see as being a bit in the gray. The part that i can't understand is how anyone can log this as a find. There is no gray area here, you did NOT find the cache as placed by the owner, period!

 

Heck, i could carry a sack full of ready made 35mm micros then toss them out everytime i didn't find a cache and never have a DNF!

Edited August 15, 2006 by Mudfrog

[+niraD]

Heck, i could carry a sack full of ready made 35mm micros then toss them out everytime i didn't find a cache and never have a DNF!

Don't laugh. I recently found a film canister with a signed scrap of paper (nothing identifying it as a geocache, however) that was left as a "replacement" for a missing regular-size cache. And the cacher logged a find for it. Makes no sense to me...

[+niraD]

Just like we might give up when we find an empty, smashed and unidentifiable tupperware box near the cache site. And log a DNF, mentioning that the owner should check the cache.

Reminds me of a couple caches where I found litter that looked a lot like a muggled cache. It didn't quite match the descriptions of the containers on the cache pages though, so I kept looking--and found the actual caches perfectly intact.

[+ibycus]

Just like we might give up when we find an empty, smashed and unidentifiable tupperware box near the cache site. And log a DNF, mentioning that the owner should check the cache.

Reminds me of a couple caches where I found litter that looked a lot like a muggled cache. It didn't quite match the descriptions of the containers on the cache pages though, so I kept looking--and found the actual caches perfectly intact.

 

In a case like this, I'd probably trash out the destroyed container, and e-mail the owner asking for a description of the cache (if I had a camera on me I'd take a picture of the destroyed container). If the description matched, and the cache was confirmed missing, I would think of this as a find (and if I were in the hider's shoes, I'd allow a find on that cache).

[+Sagefox]

Heck, i could carry a sack full of ready made 35mm micros then toss them out everytime i didn't find a cache and never have a DNF!

Don't laugh. I recently found a film canister with a signed scrap of paper (nothing identifying it as a geocache, however) that was left as a "replacement" for a missing regular-size cache. And the cacher logged a find for it. Makes no sense to me...

 

The replacement container helps subsequent finders, especially if they don't know the container is missing. It also gives the owner a time extension to get to the site.

 

And it definitely does not matter if the replacement container matches the original or even the owner's idea of what it should be. The owner has to go out there anyway. In the mean time, the person who drove 100 miles just to find this cache at least has something to log as found.

 

On topic qualifier: The replacer's action potentially helps the owner, it helps future finders, and sometimes the replacer logs it as a find. I don't do that anymore (I'm guilty of this highly significant transgression once or twice in the distant past) but I have no problem if people do it.

 

And... it is a lot of find to find multiple containers if the original is still in place. It's an extra challenge and it makes you feel just a bit smarter than the average bear. At least until you get bagled about five caches down the road.