Jump to content

Claiming a find when cache is MIA


SueEmAll
Followers 5

Recommended Posts

Honesty is always the best policy. Cachers that claim false finds are only hurting their own 'Geo rep'. Seems like my parents once told me that if a person will cheat on a small thing then they probably will cheat on on big things too. Don't loose any sleep over it... all you have control over is your own 'Geo rep' and the good feeling you get for doing the right and honest thing.

Link to comment

I actually did that once, when I knew without a doubt that the cache was missing. I had searched and searched, retracked my steps and double and triple checked my research. I knew I was in the right spot. So I logged a find. Then I thought better of it, and deleted the "found it" log. The fact is...you either find it and sign the book, or you don't. There is no middle ground, and one can not honestly log a find unless they have signed the book or scroll. It is hard to accept a DNF after enormous work and effort...but your momma didn't raise you up to be a liar and a thief. X

Edited by CYBret
Link to comment

My first thought and the one that I continue to have is that they made a mistake when they logged the cache and clicked on the wrong entry log. Since the "Found It" entry selection is right above the "Did not find it" entry, that is a possibility. Of course, then what sort of drama would that cause if it was a mistake? :D

Link to comment

I would Email the ones that logged the find, asking them if they truly meant to log a "found it" Give them the opportunity to change it since it's obvious the cache is not there. If they fail to reply or change it I'd delete the find for them.

 

 

Does it annoy anyone else when you a cache is clearly gone and you log a DNF and then subsequent cachers admit they didn't find it but claim a find anyway? Am I missing something here? I thought you had to actually find it and sign the log to claim a find.

This is an example:

An example

Link to comment

Does it annoy anyone else when you a cache is clearly gone and you log a DNF and then subsequent cachers admit they didn't find it but claim a find anyway? Am I missing something here? I thought you had to actually find it and sign the log to claim a find.

This is an example:

An example

 

Besides being dishonest, it can also fool people into thinking the cache is there, causing them to waste their time and gas looking for a missing cache. It happened to me once and I wasn't thrilled to have wasted

time I could have spent looking for caches that actually exist.

 

What is so hard about a "Found It" log meaning that you found it? If the cache isn't there you didn't find it. :D

Link to comment

We had that happen to us, we searched for a cache where we absolutely knew it should be, it wasn't there. While leaving the area we found the cache container laying on the ground but no log, I place the cache container in a spot for the owner to retrieve in case they wanted to use it again. I posted a maintenance log, but not a find, we don't post a find unless we sign the log. Since that time about 3-4 people have posted a find because they found the container where I had placed it, which was not the original cache location. Oh well, I still won't log a find.

 

The only time we logged a find when we didn't actually sign the log was because the cache container was frozen into a hole in an old tree stump and there was no way to remove it without possibly damaging it, so we took a picture and e-mailed it to the owner and logged our find. This one is close to home so now since the weather has warmed up, we will go back and sign the log.

Edited by Teamcoz
Link to comment

Every time this subject pops up someone chimes in to tell us how insignificant it is in the scheme of things. "How can you concerned about this when there is ____ to worry about?" Fill in the blank with "a war", "world hunger", "terrorist threat", or some other matter of life and death.

 

Using that standard, we shouldn't be concerned about anything other than matters of life and death. "Will the Yankees get another quality starting pitcher" Insignificant! "Will my favorite actor win the Academy Award?" Who cares? "Will my car make it through the winter?" Trivial compared to world hunger! "Will my kid get into Princeton?" Relax, some kids don't even have a chance to go to college. "Is that proposed condo complex going to block my view of the lake?" You're worried about that instead of terrorists getting hold of suitcase nukes?

 

There is a saying that goes something like "I complained about having no shoes until I saw a man who had no feet". Yeah, having no feet is a bigger issue but not having shoes can be pretty darn uncomfortable, particularly in the winter. No matter what concerns we have, there is always something more serious out there that we can worry about.

 

So being that this is a geocaching forum I think we should be free to complain, worry or obsess if we want about geocaching related matters without being told that they are trivial. I think we already know that.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

I had one the other day, but really I should have known better.

 

I was pretty far from home with the kids meeting some friends for the day and had a few spare minutes to grab some caches. Since they had been in the car seats for a while the natives were restless so I took Gracie with me to one quick park n' grab cache and then took Connor to the other one.

 

Connor's autistic, so caching with him is always challenging (but fun). Basically you've got to keep one hand on the GPS, two hands on Connor and another hand on something to hold onto while on the trail. We were about 80 feet from the cache location when I finally read the previous log on my Palm, "found the obvious cache location , but no cache. thanks for the hunt." Sure enough, they counted it as a find...smiley and all. :D

 

It's my own fault for not reading the previous logs better. I saw the smiley face and just figured it was there. Still, it's little things like this that I don't think people think about when they're writing those logs.

 

I'm also guessing the cache owner never noticed the "find/no find" because that was written back in December and there's not been any maintenance since.

 

Bret

Link to comment

We searched high and low for a cache a while back and found the obvious hiding spot, but no container. After emailing the owner asking them to check, and describing the location we suspected the cache was missing from, the owners wrote back and said we had indeed found the spot and to count it as a find. Only after that discussion with the cache owner did we earn our smiley.

 

To outright log a find with the comments "Nope, we didn't find it either!" is just plain wrong, IMHO. I don't care what the circumstances are. But, not everyone plays by the same set of rules. To each his own. It doesn't affect my numbers, or the way I play the game, so it really just doesn't matter, does it?

Link to comment

We searched high and low for a cache a while back and found the obvious hiding spot, but no container. After emailing the owner asking them to check, and describing the location we suspected the cache was missing from, the owners wrote back and said we had indeed found the spot and to count it as a find. Only after that discussion with the cache owner did we earn our smiley.

 

To outright log a find with the comments "Nope, we didn't find it either!" is just plain wrong, IMHO. I don't care what the circumstances are. But, not everyone plays by the same set of rules. To each his own. It doesn't affect my numbers, or the way I play the game, so it really just doesn't matter, does it?

I got no problem with that. In fact I have a multi that it looks like the container at the final point is missing. I noted on the cache page that if cachers would email me exactly what was at the final point I would let them log it.

 

BTW the container may have been move a few feet and is now buried in the snow and ice. Waiting for the thaw to clear up the area enough to a proper search before replacing it. If this weather holds that could be in just a day or two. :D

Link to comment

I have never understood the practice of filing a find log when the experience was actually a DNF. I feel that DNF logs serve many beneficial purposes, and, as I have said on the forums many times before, I always file DNF logs religiously, and I put every bit as much tender loving care into crafting my DNF logs as I do into writing my find logs.

 

And, for a funny DNF-related story: Starting late last year, Sue and I, along with many other finders over a four month period, filed a long and undending series of DNFs on a local 1/2 (D/T) cache which was hidden in a bamboo grove in a forest. Due to the rough terrain and dense forest cover which block satellite signals, the cache owner and others had given us all plenty of warning that the published waypoint coordinates were not very accurate, and so a good number of us spent an hour or more scouring every inch of the entire bamboo forest (about a third of an acre in size) looking for the cache, to no avail. Finally, after many months of nonending DNFs, some well-known local cachers petitioned that the cache be archived (the cache owner was busy with other matters at the time and had therefore not been paying much attention to the cache) and, in order to prove that the cache was indeed missing, six of these local cachers spent about two hours searching for the cache, with no trace found. All in all, about two dozen highly-skilled caches reported DNFs on this Difficulty 1 cache after extremely lengthy but fruitless searches. In the end, the cache owner relented and archived the cache just as winter started. Now for the funny part:

 

Very recently, a team of six out-of-state cachers, who had been the last finders of the cache prior to the long string of DNFs, noticed the string of DNFs and the subsequent archiving of the cache, and realized, to their chagrin, that the cache was likely not MIA at all, but rather that they had re-hidden it far too well after their find last year. So, they made the long trek back to this area, and it took the six cachers two searches, each over one hour in length, to find the cache which they had re-hidden many months earlier. Turned out that they had literally buried the cache under leaf mulch and dirt, and that, along with a new layer of dead leaves from the autumn leaf fall, had in essence buried the cache in soil, and thus no one would have been able to find it unless and if they had been willing and able to rip up the floor of the entire bamboo forest (which would be extremely inadvisable, to say the least!) So, in effect, they had found a Difficulty 1 cache and had subsequently re-hidden it as a Difficulty 5 cache, and that, along with the fact that the waypoint coordintes were over a hundred feet off meant that the cache became totally MIA! However, what is very neat and quite reassuring about this story is that for the many months that this cache remained unfound prior to its being archived, no geocachers interrupted the long string of DNFs with even one fake find, and rather, there was simply a long string of DNF logs. So, sometimes the system works, and it works well!

Link to comment

I looked and looked for it for about 4 hours (in my own backyard) - can I claim a find too?

 

side issue pet peeve:

I also note the misuse (IMHO) of the maintenance flag in some logs. You didn't find it and cannot truely 100% for sure know that it is gone so how can you claim to know it needs maintenance? no find=DNF not finds and not maintenance.

Link to comment
After emailing the owner asking them to check, and describing the location we suspected the cache was missing from, the owners wrote back and said we had indeed found the spot and to count it as a find. Only after that discussion with the cache owner did we earn our smiley.

 

I just don't get this. How does one "earn a smiley" without finding a cache? A "smiley" is simply a log type to indicate that you found a cache, not something to be awarded. What exactly did you find anyway? Not a geocache. What you actually "earned" was a icon_sad.gif

 

I thought the point of this sport was to find geocaches, not where they were or might have been.

 

I got no problem with that. In fact I have a multi that it looks like the container at the final point is missing. I noted on the cache page that if cachers would email me exactly what was at the final point I would let them log it.

 

What you are doing is circumventing the guidelines by creating an illegal virtual.

 

I think a lot of these "awarded smileys" are because some owners are too lazy to maintain their caches and figure if they let the unsuccessful searchers pump their find count, they are off the hook.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

 

I just don't get this. How does one "earn a smiley" without finding a cache? A "smiley" is simply a log type to indicate that you found a cache, not something to be awarded. What exactly did you find anyway? Not a geocache. What you actually "earned" was a icon_sad.gif

 

I thought the point of this sport was to find geocaches, not where they were or might have been.

 

 

I thought I explained it pretty well. The cache was about 65 miles from our home. We found the location, as proved to the owner. The owner acknowledged that the cache was missing. He replaced the cache the next day.

 

Now...I'm supposed to drive another 130 miles round trip, walk 1.5 miles in/out to the cache site, and sign a logbook, just to prove I was there? Didn't my efforts from the day before do the exact same thing, other than sign the logbook? I already pointed out that I found the exact spot the cache belonged.

 

We cache as a family, 2 adults, 3 kids, one of which is severly handicapped. We do well to do anything like this the first time...let alone duplicate efforts to sign the book.

 

I think a lot of these "awarded smileys" are because some owners are too lazy to maintain their caches and figure if they let the unsuccessful searchers pump their find count, they are off the hook.

 

And, I think most of these "awarded smileys" are because someone muggled the cache.

 

We don't log finds except after they are found, or in this ONE instance, this cache. We didn't ask to log it as a find. We asked him to check the cache. He did, and it was missing, and offered it as a find to us.

 

And, actually, the point of this sport is to have fun. Finding caches is a byproduct.

 

Play it your way, we'll play it ours. The two methods don't have to be identical.

 

 

 

(Edited to correct typo.)

Edited by Always & Forever 5
Link to comment

I did a search for a cache, went to the spot, and found a container marked "Official Geocache" with the waypoint written on it. Trouble is, it was empty. No log to sign. I stuck in a scrap of paper and claimed a smiley. I have also claimed finds on micros with absolutely filled logs. I will usually try to put a mark somewhere. And some logs have been so wet they were just mush. So if I find the cache but don't sign the log, hey, it isn't my fault, and I call it a valid find. But if I don't see the container, it is a DNF for sure.

Link to comment

Yesterday I DNF'd a 1/1.5 micro that everyone else was finding with ease! :angry: There weren't many easy spots near ground zero, so I spiraled out about 50' without any success just in case I was having a bad hair day. :D

While walking to another cache in the park, I called the cache owner (a close geopal) to confirm my efforts/suspicions. We agreed that I was looking in the correct spot, (as well as many incorrect ones,) and since he was out of state I replaced the container for him and then logged it as a find.

Anyone got a problem with this sequence of events? :angry:

 

 

Tough. Both logs stand. :blink:

Link to comment
After emailing the owner asking them to check, and describing the location we suspected the cache was missing from, the owners wrote back and said we had indeed found the spot and to count it as a find. Only after that discussion with the cache owner did we earn our smiley.

 

I just don't get this. How does one "earn a smiley" without finding a cache? A "smiley" is simply a log type to indicate that you found a cache, not something to be awarded. What exactly did you find anyway? Not a geocache. What you actually "earned" was a icon_sad.gif

 

I thought the point of this sport was to find geocaches, not where they were or might have been.

 

I got no problem with that. In fact I have a multi that it looks like the container at the final point is missing. I noted on the cache page that if cachers would email me exactly what was at the final point I would let them log it.

 

What you are doing is circumventing the guidelines by creating an illegal virtual.

 

I think a lot of these "awarded smileys" are because some owners are too lazy to maintain their caches and figure if they let the unsuccessful searchers pump their find count, they are off the hook.

I would tend to agree but not every case is the same. In the case of the cache mention. Finding the first point is as great a find as the cache container. Also I would in some cases it may be a one time thing with extenuating circumstances.

 

Note this cache: Defenders of Freedom

 

A group of cachers from came down from Canada to do some caching around here. They tried to find this cache. They were the ones that let me know it was missing/covered in ice. I would not want to deny them the find, that they may not be able to get again, because of a chunk of ice. The problem should be resolved in a day or two. Until then I thought it best to do it this way.

But maybe I'm wrong. I would like to know what you think. I'm always willing to listen and learn.

 

BTW after he contacted me via email I went to the hide and checked it out for myself before I let him log it. Even if the container is there, I as the owner could not get to it. I feel that it's my fault for letting the cache freeze to the point it was unrecoverable. I didn't want to punish the cacher for that. Next winter it will be better prepared, and maybe I can avoid this.

Link to comment

 

While walking to another cache in the park, I called the cache owner (a close geopal) to confirm my efforts/suspicions. We agreed that I was looking in the correct spot, (as well as many incorrect ones,) and since he was out of state I replaced the container for him and then logged it as a find.

Anyone got a problem with this sequence of events? :D

 

 

I sure don't, but apparently some people here do!

Link to comment

Play it your way, we'll play it ours. The two methods don't have to be identical.

 

Of course, you're free to do what you want, just as the cache owner is free to allow you to claim a find because you were there. But when you look at the my story from my last post, an "MIA find" cause me to take my son (also handicapped) on a fruitless search and wasted our time. You got a smiley, but what did it do for the greater caching community?

 

Of course, the bigger issue is, why aren't these owners checking on their caches and disabling/archiving them when they're not there?

 

Bret

Link to comment

How about "found the cache, but didn't bother to sign the log as there were muggles around & I didn't want to be noticed" or something very similar....part of the challenge of one of my hides is for you to retrieve it unnoticed and sign the log. I chuckle when I see maintenance needed cache logs on other caches that state "could not find it, I'm sure it's missing so owner needs to come out and replace it" - written by cachers with less than 20 finds. The local cachers here see my DNF logs on ones that EVERYONE seems to be able to find - I'm really lame at micros, but they all know I'm an honest cacher. Reputation over numbers, that's my motto.

Link to comment

 

Of course, the bigger issue is, why aren't these owners checking on their caches and disabling/archiving them when they're not there?

 

Bret

 

I tend to think most of them do. The owner in my case certainly did. Unless a cache is checked daily (highly impossible, for most owners), how would one know their cache is gone without a DNF log?

 

I agree to log a find without permission or contacting the owner is ridiculous, but after that is done, it's all fair.

Link to comment

Some folks are more stringent than others - but like cache listings themselves, that doesn't set a precedent!

 

I and most of the folks I know are in this for fun, and making and following all these 'rules' isn't fun. It's really a simple game, why make it hard? If you DNF a cache because it is MIA you've done your part, you should be able to log it.

 

I regularly, maybe five or six times a year, DNF a cache, call the owner, and discover that the cache is missing.

 

I, or one of the cachers with me, will usually have a small or micro cache in our kit and will replace the cache - remember we're not talking about an everyday DNF, but about ones where we know for a fact the cache is missing.

 

There have been a few times when revisiting a cache that I was sure of its location, couldn't contact the owner, and set out a replacement cache. In those cases I post a note explaining what I did and asking the owner to go have a look, make sure that his original is in fact missing, and if it is there, pick up the one I left.

 

I would hope that anyone finding one of my caches MIA would do the same... and if they don't have a container they still get the log.

 

Let's don't allow the game to get so rule-bound that there is no flexibility or consideration of exigent circumstances.

 

Thankfully each cache owner sets the logging requirements for their own caches and most are quite friendly.

Link to comment

Play it your way, we'll play it ours. The two methods don't have to be identical.

 

Of course, you're free to do what you want, just as the cache owner is free to allow you to claim a find because you were there. But when you look at the my story from my last post, an "MIA find" cause me to take my son (also handicapped) on a fruitless search and wasted our time. You got a smiley, but what did it do for the greater caching community?

 

Of course, the bigger issue is, why aren't these owners checking on their caches and disabling/archiving them when they're not there?

 

Bret

 

My wife and I wanted to find a few caches between games of our daughter's soccer tournament. I chose several potential caches based on their location and also because they had recent finds. We finally selected one, drove 10 miles there, hiked another mile and searched for nearly an hour. Nada. We finally had to get back for the start of the next game. When I went to log my DNF I discovered that the "recent finds" were all phony. The cache ahd been missing for several months. So 20 miles of driving and nearly 2 hours of our time wasted because some people wanted to "play the game their way". How incredibly selfish.

Link to comment

 

My wife and I wanted to find a few caches between games of our daughter's soccer tournament. I chose several potential caches based on their location and also because they had recent finds. We finally selected one, drove 10 miles there, hiked another mile and searched for nearly an hour. Nada. We finally had to get back for the start of the next game. When I went to log my DNF I discovered that the "recent finds" were all phony. The cache ahd been missing for several months. So 20 miles of driving and nearly 2 hours of our time wasted because some people wanted to "play the game their way". How incredibly selfish.

 

Why are you comparing apples with oranges??? This is a COMPLETELY different topic. Let's see...

 

My case: Looked for cache. Cache missing. Found spot. Emailed owner to check. Owner verified cache was gone. Owner replaced cache. Owner gave permission for us to log a find.

 

Your case: Bogus "found it" entries caused you to believe cache wasn't missing.

 

Hmmm... somehow I fail to see how they are the same. Must be just me, though...

Link to comment

Some people confuse the online log with a smiley face with finding a cache. Perhaps because it's called a "Found It" log :D . The truth is you didn't find the cache unless you found it. However you can post a "Found It" log whenever you want so long as the cache owner allows it. The way the website is set up, it is the responsibility of the cache owner to "Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements." Not only do some cache owners not delete logs that are bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements; but some cache owners invite you to log bonus smileys or log smileys for attempting to find a cache that may be missing. Some cache owners will let you log a "Found It" for helping out with maintenance by "replacing" a cache you didn't find. Of course, if you want to play the game that a "Found It" log means you found it, no cache owner is forcing you to log a "Found It" to get a smiley for something you didn't find.

 

briansnat and CYBret bring up the issue that someone may go looking for a missing cache because there is a "Found It" log. Of course this wouldn't happen if they realized that a smiley does not equal the cache being found. Some people are looking at the last several logs for a cache and deciding not to look for caches that have one or two DNFs. The point is that any cache you look for may be missing - even one that just had a find the day before. Similarly, a cache may have several DNFs on it and may still be there. If you read the logs you may see that someone logged a DNF because of too many muggles around, or perhaps they're newbies who haven't yet discovered where LPCs are hidden :angry: . If someone logs that they didn't find the cache but are claiming a find anyhow, you would know this from reading the log. When I go cache hunting, I figure that there is a chance the cache will be missing and also a chance the cache will be there. If some cache owner is allowing bogus, conterfeit logs it isn't going to have much effect on my caching.

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment

Perhaps those who so choose should campaign for a new log type - a Signed It, that can only be gotten by actually signing a physical log.

 

Until a Signed It requirement is imposed the case under discussion, finding the spot where a MIA cache should have been completes the Found It mission as far as I am concerned.

 

For you, signing the log may be the only way to claim a find, for others the sig is an only one part of the entire experience... you still had the experience if you didn't actually put pen to paper.

 

Before igniting your flamethrower remember that we're talking strictly about the OP - finding MIA cache sites.

Link to comment

Perhaps those who so choose should campaign for a new log type - a Signed It, that can only be gotten by actually signing a physical log.

 

Until a Signed It requirement is imposed the case under discussion, finding the spot where a MIA cache should have been completes the Found It mission as far as I am concerned.

 

For you, signing the log may be the only way to claim a find, for others the sig is an only one part of the entire experience... you still had the experience if you didn't actually put pen to paper.

 

Before igniting your flamethrower remember that we're talking strictly about the OP - finding MIA cache sites.

If you have never seen it before, never been to the place, don't have a photo to go by - how can you positively say it is missing?? You might think it is gone. But it is still there.

 

I had thought one of mine was gone last summer and went to log the disable but then saw a fresh found log. I was near certain it was gone. Turned out to have been moved 4 vertical feet into a light box on an abondoned electric pole. I went and moved it back to my hide spot.

 

I will never again declare one missing just because I didn't find it.

Link to comment

We searched high and low for a cache a while back and found the obvious hiding spot, but no container. After emailing the owner asking them to check, and describing the location we suspected the cache was missing from, the owners wrote back and said we had indeed found the spot and to count it as a find. Only after that discussion with the cache owner did we earn our smiley.

 

To outright log a find with the comments "Nope, we didn't find it either!" is just plain wrong, IMHO. I don't care what the circumstances are. But, not everyone plays by the same set of rules. To each his own. It doesn't affect my numbers, or the way I play the game, so it really just doesn't matter, does it?

That argument comes up ever time this subject does, and it simply doesn’t work.

 

You’re not playing the game ‘your way’, you’re being untruthful. If you find the cache, you log it as Found It, if not; you log it as Did Not Find.

 

What if I wanted to play the game ‘my way’, and my way is to urinate on the log book? There’s nothing anywhere on the website that says I can’t, so it’s OK according to that logic (or illogic).

 

In your specific case, you log it as a DNF and chalk it up to a fun experience without a find. The distance you traveled isn’t relevant. The cache owner’s lack of integrity has no bearing whatsoever on the issue. He can’t change reality or the definition of common English words. You didn’t find the cache, you log a DNF.

Link to comment

 

In your specific case, you log it as a DNF and chalk it up to a fun experience without a find. The distance you traveled isn’t relevant. The cache owner’s lack of integrity has no bearing whatsoever on the issue. He can’t change reality or the definition of common English words. You didn’t find the cache, you log a DNF.

 

We could argue on and on about this, and we both have an equal number of people who feel the same way we do, too, so... I'll just have to rest assured that I won't lose one minute of sleep worrying if the way I geocache is 'cheating' or not. Sorry if you think so, but that's your problem. I would venture to say I'm a lot less stressed over the whole issue than you are.

 

Happy caching.

Link to comment

 

In your specific case, you log it as a DNF and chalk it up to a fun experience without a find. The distance you traveled isn’t relevant. The cache owner’s lack of integrity has no bearing whatsoever on the issue. He can’t change reality or the definition of common English words. You didn’t find the cache, you log a DNF.

 

We could argue on and on about this, and we both have an equal number of people who feel the same way we do, too, so... I'll just have to rest assured that I won't lose one minute of sleep worrying if the way I geocache is 'cheating' or not. Sorry if you think so, but that's your problem. I would venture to say I'm a lot less stressed over the whole issue than you are.

 

Happy caching.

I suppose we could, but you won’t because you know you have no logical way of supporting your position, so turning tail is really your only option. I never used the word ‘cheating’, I’m not sure why you are attributing that to me.

 

Believe me, I’m far less worried about it than you are.

Link to comment

You’re not playing the game ‘your way’, you’re being untruthful. If you find the cache, you log it as Found It, if not; you log it as Did Not Find.

 

What if I wanted to play the game ‘my way’, and my way is to urinate on the log book? There’s nothing anywhere on the website that says I can’t, so it’s OK according to that logic (or illogic).

 

In your specific case, you log it as a DNF and chalk it up to a fun experience without a find. The distance you traveled isn’t relevant. The cache owner’s lack of integrity has no bearing whatsoever on the issue. He can’t change reality or the definition of common English words. You didn’t find the cache, you log a DNF.

No, you don't use the words cheat and liar, you use implication to insist that anyone who doesn't do things your way is one or both.

 

Then you bring in some wild extreme like peeing on caches - what makes you think of that?

 

"The cache owner's lack of integrity" indeed.

 

There is gray between your black and white extremes.

Link to comment
Every time this subject pops up someone chimes in to tell us how insignificant it is in the scheme of things. "How can you concerned about this when there is ____ to worry about?" Fill in the blank with "a war", "world hunger", "terrorist threat", or some other matter of life and death.

 

Using that standard, we shouldn't be concerned about anything other than matters of life and death. "Will the Yankees get another quality starting pitcher" Insignificant! "Will my favorite actor win the Academy Award?" Who cares? "Will my car make it through the winter?" Trivial compared to world hunger! "Will my kid get into Princeton?" Relax, some kids don't even have a chance to go to college. "Is that proposed condo complex going to block my view of the lake?" You're worried about that instead of terrorists getting hold of suitcase nukes?

 

There is a saying that goes something like "I complained about having no shoes until I saw a man who had no feet". Yeah, having no feet is a bigger issue but not having shoes can be pretty darn uncomfortable, particularly in the winter. No matter what concerns we have, there is always something more serious out there that we can worry about.

 

So being that this is a geocaching forum I think we should be free to complain, worry or obsess if we want about geocaching related matters without being told that they are trivial. I think we already know that.

 

Best post of 2007 thus far for me.

Link to comment

You’re not playing the game ‘your way’, you’re being untruthful. If you find the cache, you log it as Found It, if not; you log it as Did Not Find.

 

What if I wanted to play the game ‘my way’, and my way is to urinate on the log book? There’s nothing anywhere on the website that says I can’t, so it’s OK according to that logic (or illogic).

 

In your specific case, you log it as a DNF and chalk it up to a fun experience without a find. The distance you traveled isn’t relevant. The cache owner’s lack of integrity has no bearing whatsoever on the issue. He can’t change reality or the definition of common English words. You didn’t find the cache, you log a DNF.

No, you don't use the words cheat and liar, you use implication to insist that anyone who doesn't do things your way is one or both.

 

Then you bring in some wild extreme like peeing on caches - what makes you think of that?

 

"The cache owner's lack of integrity" indeed.

 

There is gray between your black and white extremes.

Uh, no. There is a difference, and it’s a huge difference.

 

My way is not to log finds on events or virtuals. I don’t consider them caches so I don’t log them as such. That’s my way of playing and have no problem with people who don’t play ‘my way’.

 

Geocaching is a community game that relies on the honor system. Geocaching is played by going to a coordinate set, finding a container, and signing the logbook. That’s what it has been all along, that’s geocaching. It isn’t ‘my way’, it’s the only way. Logging fake finds is a corruption of the game, is dishonest, and demonstrates some disturbing narcissism of the part of the person telling the lie.

Link to comment

Play it your way, we'll play it ours. The two methods don't have to be identical.

 

Of course, you're free to do what you want, just as the cache owner is free to allow you to claim a find because you were there. But when you look at the my story from my last post, an "MIA find" cause me to take my son (also handicapped) on a fruitless search and wasted our time. You got a smiley, but what did it do for the greater caching community?

 

Of course, the bigger issue is, why aren't these owners checking on their caches and disabling/archiving them when they're not there?

 

Bret

 

My wife and I wanted to find a few caches between games of our daughter's soccer tournament. I chose several potential caches based on their location and also because they had recent finds. We finally selected one, drove 10 miles there, hiked another mile and searched for nearly an hour. Nada. We finally had to get back for the start of the next game. When I went to log my DNF I discovered that the "recent finds" were all phony. The cache ahd been missing for several months. So 20 miles of driving and nearly 2 hours of our time wasted because some people wanted to "play the game their way". How incredibly selfish.

There's a cacher in the Philadelphia area who has become "sorta" famous for finding so many caches in a very short time. Turns out his "smiley" total at the time was mostly on ARCHIVED caches, or MIAs. One was claimed ( by error of the owner's CoOrds), when in fact the cache was on the other side of the state and was archived after I found it FTF. (Turned out to be in DWG Park Service property.) They usually begin with, "drove around this very scenic area" or "walked along this wonderful trail system." At no point does he ever claim to find it and some state he didn't find, yet the "smiley's" always there.

That's just not right for the rest of us who search , only post smileys when we find them and post DNFs when we don't.

I agree with Brian 100%.

Link to comment

I thought I explained it pretty well. The cache was about 65 miles from our home. We found the location, as proved to the owner. The owner acknowledged that the cache was missing. He replaced the cache the next day.

 

Now...I'm supposed to drive another 130 miles round trip, walk 1.5 miles in/out to the cache site, and sign a logbook, just to prove I was there? Didn't my efforts from the day before do the exact same thing, other than sign the logbook? I already pointed out that I found the exact spot the cache belonged.

No, you're not supposed to do all that just to prove you were there. You're supposed to do all that if you want to find the cache.

 

The first time you went, you didn't find the cache. Nobody disputes the fact that you were there.

 

If you don't want to go try and find it again, don't. There are other caches to find instead. There are no rules that say you have to re-visit any DNFs to find them after they're replaced (if missing). There are no rules that say you have to find every cache.

 

But you clearly didn't find this one and claimed that you did anyway.

 

However, I will say that if you're okay with that, then knock yourself out. Log bogus finds on hundreds of caches if you want. It's not going to bother me. And if you'll also be nice enough to state in your bogus logs that you didn't actually find the cache, you'll help keep people from trying to find a cache that actually isn't there.

 

Happy caching. (or happy going-to-a-location, either way)

Link to comment

Of course, you're free to do what you want, just as the cache owner is free to allow you to claim a find because you were there. But when you look at the my story from my last post, an "MIA find" cause me to take my son (also handicapped) on a fruitless search and wasted our time. You got a smiley, but what did it do for the greater caching community?

 

Of course, the bigger issue is, why aren't these owners checking on their caches and disabling/archiving them when they're not there?

 

Bret

 

My wife and I wanted to find a few caches between games of our daughter's soccer tournament. I chose several potential caches based on their location and also because they had recent finds. We finally selected one, drove 10 miles there, hiked another mile and searched for nearly an hour. Nada. We finally had to get back for the start of the next game. When I went to log my DNF I discovered that the "recent finds" were all phony. The cache ahd been missing for several months. So 20 miles of driving and nearly 2 hours of our time wasted because some people wanted to "play the game their way". How incredibly selfish.

There's a cacher in the Philadelphia area who has become "sorta" famous for finding so many caches in a very short time. Turns out his "smiley" total at the time was mostly on ARCHIVED caches, or MIAs. One was claimed ( by error of the owner's CoOrds), when in fact the cache was on the other side of the state and was archived after I found it FTF. (Turned out to be in DWG Park Service property.) They usually begin with, "drove around this very scenic area" or "walked along this wonderful trail system." At no point does he ever claim to find it and some state he didn't find, yet the "smiley's" always there.

That's just not right for the rest of us who search , only post smileys when we find them and post DNFs when we don't.

I agree with Brian 100%.

Based soley on the examples above, I have to agree. If the cache clearly is not there, it is not a find. Logging it as a find is just inflating your stats. That is harmless as far as I'm concered. I'm not trying to outdo anyone in their numbers game anyway. However logging it as a find when it's not there is also misleading to other cachers and the cache owner.

Link to comment

Some folks are more stringent than others - but like cache listings themselves, that doesn't set a precedent!

 

I and most of the folks I know are in this for fun, and making and following all these 'rules' isn't fun. It's really a simple game, why make it hard? If you DNF a cache because it is MIA you've done your part, you should be able to log it.

 

I regularly, maybe five or six times a year, DNF a cache, call the owner, and discover that the cache is missing.

 

I, or one of the cachers with me, will usually have a small or micro cache in our kit and will replace the cache - remember we're not talking about an everyday DNF, but about ones where we know for a fact the cache is missing.

 

There have been a few times when revisiting a cache that I was sure of its location, couldn't contact the owner, and set out a replacement cache. In those cases I post a note explaining what I did and asking the owner to go have a look, make sure that his original is in fact missing, and if it is there, pick up the one I left.

 

I would hope that anyone finding one of my caches MIA would do the same... and if they don't have a container they still get the log.

 

Let's don't allow the game to get so rule-bound that there is no flexibility or consideration of exigent circumstances.

 

Thankfully each cache owner sets the logging requirements for their own caches and most are quite friendly.

 

Quoted from the Geocaching FAQ:

 

What are the rules in Geocaching?

 

Geocaching is a relatively new phenomenon. Therefore, the rules are very simple:

 

1. Take something from the cache

 

2. Leave something in the cache

 

3. Write about it in the logbook

 

Where you place a cache is up to you.

 

Seems like pretty simple rules to me.

 

DC

Link to comment

I think most of us here would agree that one shouldn't log a find on their own cache. The reasoning is that you really didn't find the cache because you already knew where the cache was. Helping out a friend by replacing his cache with permission is admirable but if it was me I would log a note instead of a find because I didn't really find the cache.

 

I've been offered a 'go ahead and log a find' on several caches that I've logged DNFs on. These particular caches were indeed missing and the cache owner 'gave me permission' to log a find. Each time I e-mailed the cache owner back and politely declined. I told them that I would rather wait until the cache was re-placed and would then return to find and sign the logbook before claiming a find to the world. Perhaps I have a few less smilies caching this way but I prefer to cache honestly so that I have only good memories to think back on.

 

It's amazing how easily cachers can justify "earning" their simile. Its really a very simple black and white fact. You either found it (and signed the log) or you didn't. The note log is for logging in the 'grey' area.

Link to comment

 

My wife and I wanted to find a few caches between games of our daughter's soccer tournament. I chose several potential caches based on their location and also because they had recent finds. We finally selected one, drove 10 miles there, hiked another mile and searched for nearly an hour. Nada. We finally had to get back for the start of the next game. When I went to log my DNF I discovered that the "recent finds" were all phony. The cache ahd been missing for several months. So 20 miles of driving and nearly 2 hours of our time wasted because some people wanted to "play the game their way". How incredibly selfish.

 

Why are you comparing apples with oranges??? This is a COMPLETELY different topic. Let's see...

 

My case: Looked for cache. Cache missing. Found spot. Emailed owner to check. Owner verified cache was gone. Owner replaced cache. Owner gave permission for us to log a find.

 

Your case: Bogus "found it" entries caused you to believe cache wasn't missing.

 

Hmmm... somehow I fail to see how they are the same. Must be just me, though...

 

In your case the owner replaced the cache promptly. That doesn't always happen. Too often owners give permission to log a find use it as an excuse to shirk their responsibility to take care of the cache. When I see "smileys" for a cache in GSAK it doesn't tell me that the owner is giving permission to log phony finds on a missing cache.

Link to comment

Does it annoy anyone else when you a cache is clearly gone and you log a DNF and then subsequent cachers admit they didn't find it but claim a find anyway? Am I missing something here? I thought you had to actually find it and sign the log to claim a find.

This is an example:

An example

 

If the cache owner allows a find on a MIA cache that's their choice. However to claim one without the owner's blessing is like watching a complete dork figure skate.

Link to comment
I regularly, maybe five or six times a year, DNF a cache, call the owner, and discover that the cache is missing.

 

I, or one of the cachers with me, will usually have a small or micro cache in our kit and will replace the cache - remember we're not talking about an everyday DNF, but about ones where we know for a fact the cache is missing.

 

I would hope that anyone finding one of my caches MIA would do the same...

This is a good samaritan solution for this issue. I have helped my fellow cachers out when their caches have been muggled and they have helped me out too. I think it also creates a tighter community spirit. :D Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment
I regularly, maybe five or six times a year, DNF a cache, call the owner, and discover that the cache is missing.

 

I, or one of the cachers with me, will usually have a small or micro cache in our kit and will replace the cache - remember we're not talking about an everyday DNF, but about ones where we know for a fact the cache is missing.

Yeah, we have had several of those in my area; a cacher cannot find a cache, so they call the owner, and they decide together that it is really, really missing. So the seeker places a new cache container and claims a find.

 

Then, a couple weeks later, when somebody finds the original container (that probably moved from its original spot), there is a great deal of confusion about which cache is which.

 

And the "find" claimed by the person who replaced the (not actually missing) original cache is even less valid than it was originally, since they did not find the cache and they have actually made the situation worse.

 

Not a good solution, IMO.

Link to comment

I claimed a "found" on this cache. It was obvious that the cache had been muggled, but I found the remnants of the log book in the location of the cache. The micro container was missing and the muggles had torn the logbook into many pieces but left the log in the cache hiding location. I scanned the remnants of the log and posted the scan with my Found post as well as a maintenance post for the owner.

 

This is a different circumstance than most questionable "finds" though. Just because you get close, doesn't mean you found it. Isn't the whole purpose of the paper log in the cache to keep people honest? If you didn't can't sign the log, you did not find the cache, right? (That's not entire true though...I found a waterlogged cache where my signing would have destroyed the logbook...I notified the owner that it needed maintenance before claiming the find.) If I can't find at least the destroyed physical remnants of a muggled cache, I would never think to claim a find.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 5
×
×
  • Create New...