Logging a puzzle cache without actually finding the cache?

[+Dgwphotos]

I have a puzzle cache that in order to find the cache, you need to find two travel bugs that contain the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, then go find the jigsaw puzzle and assemble the puzzle using the pieces from the TB's to get the coord's. Recently, an newbee cacher logged the cache and logged that it needs maintnience, as well. In the Needs Maintaince log, they reported that the cache was a different container than was listed, that there was no TB's, and that half the puzzle was missing. These comments makes it obvious that they did not read the cache listing and take notice that the cache is a puzzle cache, that has two parts, the puzzle and the actual cache. It is also obvious that they did not actually find the cache, just the puzzle. So I ask, is it a good idea to delete his find log? I am going to invesigate the report of a wet puzzle, so the Needs maintance log will stay.

[+StarBrand]

I would send an email politely explaining the cache and ask them to alter the log type. If no action within a few days - then delete it and send a followup email again explaining why you deleted it.

[+Jamie Z]

The best thing to do is email the guy first.

 

Perhaps there is an explanation. You never know. Could be that he logged the wrong cache. Could be that he logged the right cache, but got it mixed up with another one he found the same day. You never know.

 

If in fact the cacher did not find your cache, I would delete the log. But again, very good idea to email the cacher to let him know you are deleting it and why. No reason to get into a pissing match, but you shouldn't leave fraudulent logs on the cache. In fact, it's your duty as a cache owner. (It says so in the guidelines)

 

Jamie

[+Dgwphotos]

I did email them when they posted the Needs Maintaince log, explaining about the puzzle. I have yet to receive a response.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Sounds like they found the cache final, signed the log, noted that it Needs Maintenance - that's pretty much a find!

 

Maybe they didn't follow your rules just right, but they found it!

 

See the many threads debating Additional Logging Requirements (ALRs).

 

I say if their signature is in the log it's a find.

 

Ed

[+Team Teuton]

Sounds like the guy's a noob who made a mistake.

 

I think diplomacy is the way to go.

[+Jamie Z]

In the Needs Maintaince log, they reported that the cache was a different container than was listed, that there was no TB's, and that half the puzzle was missing. ...It is also obvious that they did not actually find the cache, just the puzzle.

Sounds like they found the cache final, signed the log, noted that it Needs Maintenance - that's pretty much a find!

If the cacher did indeed find the final container, despite not solving the puzzle, then I agree that it's a find. However, the OP indicates that the cache wasn't actually found.

 

Jamie

[+ORL22]

No help with the logging/find count issue but I wanted to say this sounds like a neat cache - wish I wasn't 1948.5 miles from it!

[+Isonzo Karst]

Be patient - I assume you explained that what he found was just a stage to the ACTUAL cache find. None the less, it's the holidays, checking email may not be a priority, especially if he's visiting or being visisted. Also, he may not be getting GC.com email. The "no reply@" triggers a lot of spam filters.

 

I'd wait a bit, try again. But yes, eventually delete the find. He indicates that "only the north cordinates were visible" so maybe he does get it, but feels that since he couldn't read the longitude you owe him the find. The old "smiley for effort" notion.

Edited November 30, 2006 by Isonzo Karst

[Mushtang]

Sounds like they found the cache final, signed the log, noted that it Needs Maintenance - that's pretty much a find!

 

Maybe they didn't follow your rules just right, but they found it!

 

See the many threads debating Additional Logging Requirements (ALRs).

 

I say if their signature is in the log it's a find.

 

Ed

Reading his Needs Maintenance log, and the cache description, it doesn't sound to me like he found the final at all. I'd agree with earlier posts that suggest if you don't hear back from your email, then check the log in the final container to be sure, and if it's not there then delete the Find.

 

I also don't think this is an ALR situation, since the description doesn't state that any particular thing is mandatory under threat of log deletion. The normal, assumed, requirement of finding the final location and signing the log book is the only requirement, and it's not "additional".

 

If he signed the log, leave the Find, if he didn't, delete it.

[+cimawr]

Adding to the consensus, after looking at the log, it certainly does appear that the cacher didn't read the cache page (or didn't understand it if s/he did), just followed the coordinates to the first stage and assumed that was all there was to the cache.

Which I agree with everyone else doesn't quite count as a find, since logging a find on a puzzle or multi (yours is sort of both) does normally require finding the final stage.

 

The first part is an easy mistake for a newbie to make if you've done a PQ or the like, downloaded a bunch of coordinates to your GPS, and while out see that a cache is nearby and go look for it w/o the cache page.

I did that early on with a puzzle cache. I'd run a PQ and downloaded a slew of waypoints to my Garmin; then, after finding a normal cache, looked at the GPS for "nearest waypoints", saw there was another cache less than a quarter mile away, and went looking for it.

 

However, I ALSO realized after finding the first location that something wasn't right, went and read the cache page, and eventually did find the final stage (2 months later). Which it does seem a bit dim on the cacher's part not to read the page and figure things out when s/he went in to log it.

OTOH, playing Devil's Advocate (and putting on my editor/teacher hat ) your cache's page could spell things out a bit more clearly; it's basically written with the assumption that everyone reading it is a seasoned cacher who can fill in the gaps, so to speak.

None the less, it IS perfectly obvious that your cache has more than one stage to it.

[+Dgwphotos]

I will check up on the cache and puzzle next week and make sure.

[+Prying Pandora]

I have a puzzle cache that in order to find the cache, you need to find two travel bugs that contain the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, then go find the jigsaw puzzle and assemble the puzzle using the pieces from the TB's to get the coord's. Recently, an newbee cacher logged the cache and logged that it needs maintnience, as well. In the Needs Maintaince log, they reported that the cache was a different container than was listed, that there was no TB's, and that half the puzzle was missing. These comments makes it obvious that they did not read the cache listing and take notice that the cache is a puzzle cache, that has two parts, the puzzle and the actual cache. It is also obvious that they did not actually find the cache, just the puzzle. So I ask, is it a good idea to delete his find log? I am going to invesigate the report of a wet puzzle, so the Needs maintance log will stay.

 

I bet I can guess what he found. His description sounds exactly like the missing container for Danville Stumped. The big mystery is where did he find it, because it's obviously not your cache. Looking at the last DNF log for Danville Stumped and knowing that the cache wasn't in the stump to begin with, I'd bet that it's still in place. He either navigated to the wrong cache or came up with Heaven knows what for your cache, since he never had the West coords at all.

[+Dgwphotos]

I have a puzzle cache that in order to find the cache, you need to find two travel bugs that contain the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, then go find the jigsaw puzzle and assemble the puzzle using the pieces from the TB's to get the coord's. Recently, an newbee cacher logged the cache and logged that it needs maintnience, as well. In the Needs Maintaince log, they reported that the cache was a different container than was listed, that there was no TB's, and that half the puzzle was missing. These comments makes it obvious that they did not read the cache listing and take notice that the cache is a puzzle cache, that has two parts, the puzzle and the actual cache. It is also obvious that they did not actually find the cache, just the puzzle. So I ask, is it a good idea to delete his find log? I am going to invesigate the report of a wet puzzle, so the Needs maintance log will stay.

 

I bet I can guess what he found. His description sounds exactly like the missing container for Danville Stumped. The big mystery is where did he find it, because it's obviously not your cache. Looking at the last DNF log for Danville Stumped and knowing that the cache wasn't in the stump to begin with, I'd bet that it's still in place. He either navigated to the wrong cache or came up with Heaven knows what for your cache, since he never had the West coords at all.

 

I don't think so. His description sounds exactly like the puzzle part of my cache. The actual cache is exactly what I described in the cache listing, however, the puzzle is in the container that he described, it's just not a strawberry container.

[+edscott]

I did email them when they posted the Needs Maintaince log, explaining about the puzzle. I have yet to receive a response.

 

tick, tick, tick, tick, Gone.

[AZcachemeister]

Sounds like they found the cache final, signed the log, noted that it Needs Maintenance - that's pretty much a find!

 

Maybe they didn't follow your rules just right, but they found it!

 

See the many threads debating Additional Logging Requirements (ALRs).

 

I say if their signature is in the log it's a find.

 

Ed

Reading his Needs Maintenance log, and the cache description, it doesn't sound to me like he found the final at all. I'd agree with earlier posts that suggest if you don't hear back from your email, then check the log in the final container to be sure, and if it's not there then delete the Find.

 

I also don't think this is an ALR situation, since the description doesn't state that any particular thing is mandatory under threat of log deletion. The normal, assumed, requirement of finding the final location and signing the log book is the only requirement, and it's not "additional".

 

If he signed the log, leave the Find, if he didn't, delete it.

 

That's the real deal.

I would try VERY hard to make contact and get the logger to correct their mistake (it looks as if they couldn't grasp your very cool concept!).

If they don't respond, and didn't sign the log...you know.

[+Dgwphotos]

I checked up on the cache today, and as expected, there was no signature from the individual in question. I also never got a response from the individual via email. I have deleted the log. I also sent them this email:

 

"I removed your find on the Are we Missing Pieces to the Puzzle cache, as you did not sign the log book for the cache, a requirement for a legitimate find. I am doing so, because it is my duty as the cache owner to remove illegitamate finds. If you have a dispute with this decision, I would recommend that you read the guidelines for reporting a cache:

 

"Cache Maintenance

 

The cache owner will assume all responsibility of their cache listings.

 

The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements."

 

http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx#maint

 

Thank you for understanding."

 

I did go and check up on the puzzle and it has gone missing, so I had to disable the cache.

Edited December 8, 2006 by Dwoodford