Claiming a find when cache is MIA

[+Wadcutter]

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

It has nothing to do with honesty or truthfulness or doing what's right. It's all about boosing their self-esteem. It's because if they don't get a smiley then it causes irrepairable damage to their self-esteem and they think they're a failure. Their mommies told them if they aren't successful then other kids won't play with them and will ridicule them. It's also not their fault they didn't find it, it's the cache owner's fault because he didn't maintain the cache properly or the previous finder's fault for hiding it differently than the owner intended, or the government's fault because the sats were not being received that day. Doesn't really matter whose fault, it wasn't theirs, somebody else's fault, therefore they are ENTITLED to a smiley. Otherwise they'll go thru life as a failure, they won't get the promotion, and other people won't like them.

It's not about honesty and truthfulness. It's about doing whatever they can to get ahead of everyone else and show that they aren't a failure. That's the way they were raised. It shows their true moral worth.

[+Totem Clan]

I may not have been in this sport from the beginning but I thought the original idea was for someone to hide something at a specific location and log the coords online for someone else to find.unsure.gif

 

The purpose of the logbook is to prove you found what the original hider wanted you to find. dry.gif

 

I've logged a cache location because I found the obvious hiding place (a log with a carved out hole big enough for a film canister) ....

 

 

There seems to be a bit of a disconnect here.

I have to agree. As a cacher owner, you would be doing me a disservice if you said you found my cache, but in fact the cache is gone.

 

Edit to fix the quotes

Edited March 13, 2007 by Totem Clan

[+Totem Clan]

It has nothing to do with honesty or truthfulness or doing what's right. It's all about boosing their self-esteem. It's because if they don't get a smiley then it causes irrepairable damage to their self-esteem and they think they're a failure. Their mommies told them if they aren't successful then other kids won't play with them and will ridicule them. It's also not their fault they didn't find it, it's the cache owner's fault because he didn't maintain the cache properly or the previous finder's fault for hiding it differently than the owner intended, or the government's fault because the sats were not being received that day. Doesn't really matter whose fault, it wasn't theirs, somebody else's fault, therefore they are ENTITLED to a smiley. Otherwise they'll go thru life as a failure, they won't get the promotion, and other people won't like them.

It's not about honesty and truthfulness. It's about doing whatever they can to get ahead of everyone else and show that they aren't a failure. That's the way they were raised. It shows their true moral worth.

My Father once told me, "The one person I have to live with the rest of your life is the one in the mirror. So don't do anything that he might be able to live with".

 

I don't think he was talking about geocaching, but in this case, like in any other, I think I'll take his advise.

 

Also, we learn more from failure than from success.

Edited March 13, 2007 by Totem Clan

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

I have to agree. As a cacher owner, you would be doing me a disservice if you said you found my cache, but in fact the cache is gone.

The issue here is logging an MIA when the cache is CONFIRMED to be MIA, not on a regular DNF.

[Mushtang]

If you and a friend share a banana split sundae, and the friend gets the cherry off the top, that means that you didn't eat any sundae, right?

 

That seems to be how a few of the folks in here look at geocaching.

 

The ice cream is meaningless. The banana has no value. The chocolate sauce has no flavor, nor does the caramel sauce or the strawberry topping. The nuts are nothing at all. The whole thing is absolutely meaningless if you don't get the cherry on top.

 

Yeah, try running that past your doctor when he asks why you keep gaining weight!

I love analogies. I often try to use them, and I think this is a great one.

 

You're suggesting that the cherry is the signing of the log, but the rest of the sundae is the experience you have looking for the cache (hike, view, fun with friends, etc.).

 

In this analogy, I would definitely have enjoyed the sundae, but I wouldn't have gotten the cherry on top. That's all. If someone asked me if I had the cherry, I wouldn't say yes. I wouldn't log that cherry as Eaten on my gc.com (GotCherry.com) profile. But I won't deny that the sundae was delicious.

 

On a cache that is MIA I wouldn't log it as Found. If someone asks if I enjoyed the hike, saw the waterfall, had fun with friends, or whatever, I would say yes! Indeed! But I wouldn't log a find.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

If you and a friend share a banana split sundae, and the friend gets the cherry off the top, that means that you didn't eat any sundae, right?

 

That seems to be how a few of the folks in here look at geocaching.

 

The ice cream is meaningless. The banana has no value. The chocolate sauce has no flavor, nor does the caramel sauce or the strawberry topping. The nuts are nothing at all. The whole thing is absolutely meaningless if you don't get the cherry on top.

 

Yeah, try running that past your doctor when he asks why you keep gaining weight!

I love analogies. I often try to use them, and I think this is a great one.

 

You're suggesting that the cherry is the signing of the log, but the rest of the sundae is the experience you have looking for the cache (hike, view, fun with friends, etc.).

 

In this analogy, I would definitely have enjoyed the sundae, but I wouldn't have gotten the cherry on top. That's all. If someone asked me if I had the cherry, I wouldn't say yes. I wouldn't log that cherry as Eaten on my gc.com (GotCherry.com) profile. But I won't deny that the sundae was delicious.

 

On a cache that is MIA I wouldn't log it as Found. If someone asks if I enjoyed the hike, saw the waterfall, had fun with friends, or whatever, I would say yes! Indeed! But I wouldn't log a find.

Very well-reasoned and sane response! I agree! Thank you!

[Mushtang]

I have to agree. As a cacher owner, you would be doing me a disservice if you said you found my cache, but in fact the cache is gone.

The issue here is logging an MIA when the cache is CONFIRMED to be MIA, not on a regular DNF.

What's the difference? If you were at the place where the cache used to be, or at the place where the cache is close to, you're still experiencing the same view, hike, fun with friends, etc. Right?

 

In both cases you didn't sign the log book, or find the cache.

 

A DNF is a DNF, no matter what the condition of the cache is.

[+Totem Clan]

I have to agree. As a cacher owner, you would be doing me a disservice if you said you found my cache, but in fact the cache is gone.

The issue here is logging an MIA when the cache is CONFIRMED to be MIA, not on a regular DNF.

What's the difference? If you were at the place where the cache used to be, or at the place where the cache is close to, you're still experiencing the same view, hike, fun with friends, etc. Right?

 

In both cases you didn't sign the log book, or find the cache.

 

A DNF is a DNF, no matter what the condition of the cache is.

Well said.

[+QSparrow]

The issue here is logging an MIA when the cache is CONFIRMED to be MIA, not on a regular DNF.

A cache that is MIA is by definition not findable. DNF is the appropriate log entry. Simple.

[Trinity's Crew]

It has nothing to do with honesty or truthfulness or doing what's right. It's all about boosing their self-esteem. It's because if they don't get a smiley then it causes irrepairable damage to their self-esteem and they think they're a failure. Their mommies told them if they aren't successful then other kids won't play with them and will ridicule them. It's also not their fault they didn't find it, it's the cache owner's fault because he didn't maintain the cache properly or the previous finder's fault for hiding it differently than the owner intended, or the government's fault because the sats were not being received that day. Doesn't really matter whose fault, it wasn't theirs, somebody else's fault, therefore they are ENTITLED to a smiley. Otherwise they'll go thru life as a failure, they won't get the promotion, and other people won't like them.

It's not about honesty and truthfulness. It's about doing whatever they can to get ahead of everyone else and show that they aren't a failure. That's the way they were raised. It shows their true moral worth.

 

It has nothing to do with honesty or truthfulness or doing what's right. It's all about claiming moral superiority. It's because if someone gets a smiley that doesn’t meet their standards then it causes irreparable damage to their psyche. Their mommies told them if they don’t impose their standards then other kids will have fun without them. It's also not their fault they rail at interpretations of “found it” that don’t mesh with their own, it's the cache owner's fault because he allowed the find, or the finder's fault for wanting to log a find in a manner that they don’t agree with, or Groundspeak’s fault because they don’t crack down on what they perceive as abuse. Doesn't really matter whose fault, it wasn't theirs, somebody else's fault; therefore they are ENTITLED to complain about a smiley. Otherwise they'll go thru life as a failure. They will complain that the other guy didn’t earn the promotion, and other people don't like them because they are jealous of their morality. It's not about honesty and truthfulness. It's about doing whatever they can to make them feel superior to everyone else and show that they and only they are doing this right. That's the way they were raised. It shows their true moral worth.

 

I don't believe either of these statements but you can paint things any color you want. I am firmly in the camp of those who believe you need to find the cache to log the cache. I'm just not ready to pass judgement on all of those who don't happen to agree.

[+QSparrow]

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.

How is this "punishing" the cacher? It's part of the game. You didn't know the cache froze over any more than you would know if it went missing. The cacher logged their experience and it's your job to either make the cache available or disable it, which you did. The cacher is free to come back when it's enabled again, or not.

 

What's the big deal with DNFs? I don't get it.

[+Totem Clan]

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.

How is this "punishing" the cacher? It's part of the game. You didn't know the cache froze over any more than you would know if it went missing. The cacher logged their experience and it's your job to either make the cache available or disable it, which you did. The cacher is free to come back when it's enabled again, or not.

 

What's the big deal with DNFs? I don't get it.

Keep reading.

[+tozainamboku]

I hate to go totally off-topic, but this discussion reminds me of a Harvey Penick quote I read once:

 

Hole Them All

 

Two proud parents came to me at the club and announced that their young son had just scored his first birdie.

 

I agreed that was a wonderful event and asked them how long was the putt Junior made for the birdie

 

The parents said the putt was only two feet long, so they gave Junior a "gimme" to assure his first birdie.

 

"I've got bad news for you," I said. "Junior still hasn't made his first birdie."

 

Not only did Junior not sink the birdie putt, it was now planted in his mind that he could pick up his ball two feet from the hole and pronounce the putt as made, not having to face the moment of truth

 

When Junior reaches a higher level of play, where there are no "gimmes," he may develop an anxiety about short putts that will bother him the rest of his life.

 

My rule is that a youngster, no matter how small, should be required to hole every putt.

 

If Junior grows up knowing he has to make all the short ones, that will automatically become part of his game. When he plays on higher levels and faces a two-footer to win an important match, he'll be ready.

 

Not totally OT. I'm willing to bet the kind of people who log phony finds, if they golfed, would take "gimme" puts and mulligans. Logging a phony Found It on a missing cache is geocaching's version of golf's gimme put.

 

Geocaching is not the PGA. When there is a Professional Geocachers Association we can discuss if people who take credit for a find in a questionable situation are "cheaters". I understand the puritans want a "Found It" log to mean you found the cache. But there really is no way to enforce this. So long as cache owners will allow "Found It" logs for other than finding a cache, there will be people who will log "Found It" on caches they didn't find. Fortunately, for the puritans, no one can force you to log a "Found It" you don't think you deserve. You just need to take everyone else's "numbers" with a grain of salt.

[+Always & Forever 5]

What's the big deal with DNFs? I don't get it.

There isn't a big deal with DNFs. As I've said before, I have lots of 'em. This thread was started regarding MIA caches, not DNFs.

 

Why is that so hard for people to understand???

[+Googling Hrpty Hrrs]

They had the experience I wanted them to have--they enjoyed the stroll, the beautiful environment, the scenic view, and found the spot that held the cache. If the cache had been there, there is no way they could have missed it in that particular spot.

 

What did the "fail to do"? They didn't get the thrill of opening the container and writing their name. I figure that someone with over 300 finds has opened an ammo can once or twice and probably has had the pleasure of signing their name on some paper before.

 

They did what I really wanted them to do and they provided me with valuable information to help me tend to my cache. No sense making them go back there again just to write their name. That's just busy work.

 

If it's about the stroll and the experience, why the need to log anything?Whenever someone discusses this sort of logging practice they holler "why do ya'll care so much about the smilies? We're about the experience!" If that's so, don't log anything. Just enjoy the experience. The fact is however, without the grand smiley the stroll and the experience would be lessened for these smiley grabbers.

 

I care so little for smilies I only do it when I actually sign a log. And that's usually quite late, or not at all. (I HATE logging caches)

 

Busy work indeed. The busy work is the act of logging caches you didn't find. Rather than waste their time doing this, they really should focus on the "stroll."

[+Totem Clan]

 

Geocaching is not the PGA. When there is a Professional Geocachers Association we can discuss if people who take credit for a find in a questionable situation are "cheaters". I understand the puritans want a "Found It" log to mean you found the cache. But there really is no way to enforce this. So long as cache owners will allow "Found It" logs for other than finding a cache, there will be people who will log "Found It" on caches they didn't find. Fortunately, for the puritans, no one can force you to log a "Found It" you don't think you deserve. You just need to take everyone else's "numbers" with a grain of salt.

The only numbers I care about are mine. I think it's neat to look at other folks' numbers, but I do take them with a grain of salt. Just like in a friendly game of golf, if you cut strokes in your game, that doesn't effect my game. But if you asks me what I think of it, I'll tell you. That doesn't mean I think you "have to" do it my way, but don't ask me to cut strokes for you. Also, after the game, don't try to put me down because you're numbers are better just because you cut strokes.

[+Always & Forever 5]

Busy work indeed. The busy work is the act of logging caches you didn't find. Rather than waste their time doing this, they really should focus on the "stroll."

 

Again, it's a thread about MIA caches, not ones simply not able to be found.

 

Not totally OT. I'm willing to bet the kind of people who log phony finds, if they golfed, would take "gimme" puts and mulligans.

 

I don't golf, so I don't know, but (GASP!)...the horror!

 

Sheesh...

[+Totem Clan]

If it's about the stroll and the experience, why the need to log anything?Whenever someone discusses this sort of logging practice they holler "why do ya'll care so much about the smilies? We're about the experience!" If that's so, don't log anything. Just enjoy the experience. The fact is however, without the grand smiley the stroll and the experience would be lessened for these smiley grabbers.

 

I care so little for smilies I only do it when I actually sign a log. And that's usually quite late, or not at all. (I HATE logging caches)

 

Busy work indeed. The busy work is the act of logging caches you didn't find. Rather than waste their time doing this, they really should focus on the "stroll."

I like logging caches for my sake. It shows where I've been and what I've done, and let's me know what left out there for me to do. I like check them off. Kinda like a birdwatcher life list. I'm not doing to show off my numbers or anything.

 

I also log them for the owner. I like reading the logs folks leave for my caches. I like hear what they have to say about the cache and the hunt for it. I alos like that it tells the owner the cache is still there.

 

But back on topic:

 

I have to agree that logging caches you didn't find, is a waste of time.

[+QSparrow]

There isn't a big deal with DNFs. As I've said before, I have lots of 'em. This thread was started regarding MIA caches, not DNFs.

 

Why is that so hard for people to understand???

I have no problem understanding the thread. It's about people who don't appropriately log a DNF when they don't find a cache, and instead claim a find.

[+Totem Clan]

People have been comparing caching to golf. I think a better analogy would be that of hunting.

 

You don't go out hunting and then claim a trophy buck unless you bag it. Just because you had a nice walk through the woods and you saw where the buck bedded down, doesn't mean a had a 'successful' hunt. It may have been a good hunt. It may have been a fun hunt. It may have been one of the greatest days of your life. But you didn't get the buck.

 

How can you hunt a cache and claim a find if you didn't find the cache?

[+Googling Hrpty Hrrs]

Again, it's a thread about MIA caches, not ones simply not able to be found.

 

My comment was quite on-topic. Your statement above is not quite right. It's about claiming a find on caches that are MIA. My post clearly speaks to that.

 

I guess you state I was off topic because you are for the logging of MIA caches when the cache owner says go ahead.

Edited March 13, 2007 by Googling Hrpty Hrrs

[+tazclimber]

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

Did this a couple of times but only after contacting the cache owner, explaining what we DID find and then being told by the owner that he would replace the cache and record our name. Otherwise it is DNF.

[+Always & Forever 5]

Did this a couple of times but only after contacting the cache owner, explaining what we DID find and then being told by the owner that he would replace the cache and record our name. Otherwise it is DNF.

 

Ooooooo...now you've done it! Prepare to be flamed!

 

Hard to believe there are so many out there that actually get spun up over a game where grown men tramp through briars to find a decon box hanging in a tree. The people who are screaming about this are usually the same people who have multiple finds from one event cache, have "Discovered It" icons for numerous TBs they happened to see in someone's three ring binder while at said event cache, and who revel in the fact that they have more "finds" than the next guy. Which, by the way, I'm not necessarily saying there's anything wrong with, either, just to keep the record straight. They are items for another thread.

 

Hypocritical?

 

Ummm...yep.

Edited March 13, 2007 by Always & Forever 5

[+BlueDeuce]

Did this a couple of times but only after contacting the cache owner, explaining what we DID find and then being told by the owner that he would replace the cache and record our name. Otherwise it is DNF.

 

Ooooooo...now you've done it! Prepare to be flamed!

 

Hard to believe there are so many out there that actually get spun up over a game where grown men tramp through briars to find a decon box hanging in a tree. The people who are screaming about this are usually the same people who have multiple finds from one event cache, have "Discovered It" icons for numerous TBs they happened to see in someone's three ring binder while at said event cache, and who revel in the fact that they have more "finds" than the next guy. Hypocritical?

 

Ummm...yep.

 

Absolutely no Discovers or Multi logs in my stats. I guess I rock!

[+Always & Forever 5]

Yep, BD, I guess you do. Note I said, "usually".

[+QSparrow]

Absolutely no Discovers or Multi logs in my stats. I guess I rock!

Me too.

[+Googling Hrpty Hrrs]

Hard to believe there are so many out there that actually get spun up over a game where grown men tramp through briars to find a decon box hanging in a tree.

 

You don't have to be "spun up" to have an opinion. Just because I think it's silly to log a cache you didn't find (MIA, extra log, multi event, whatever) doesn't mean I'm gonna lose any sleep over it. I think if those folks couldn't get their extra smiley it would be them losing sleep worrying about it.

 

Absolutely no Discovers or Multi logs in my stats. I guess I rock!

 

Me, three

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

How can you hunt a cache and claim a find if you didn't find the cache?

First of all, we are talking about a rare occurance... the exception, not the norm.

 

I don't think anyone disagrees that 'you must sign the log to make the find' is, as a rule, the way the game is played.

 

However, like all rules, there are exceptions.

 

My stats are inaccurate in several ways, but pretty fairly represent my caching habits. For every cache I have logged twice either because it moved or I logged it again when my family was with me, for every pocket cache, etc. there's probably three caches out there that have my signature in them that I never logged online. That's just me and I am comfortable with that. I've been on three cache runs with friends already this month totaling maybe 60 finds and haven't logged one of them. Again, that's just me.

 

So, using my stats just as a general guide I find 1.65 caches a day on average, or 602 per year.

 

Of those 602 finds I am guessing that the circumstances described in the OP and under discussion here occur perhaps 6 times.

 

As a reminder, the circumstances are: A DNF, contact the owner, confirm the cache MIA, either replace it or not, and log it with owner permission as a Find.

 

To read this thread anyone who does this once is smeared and tainted, their personal integrity regularly called into question, and belittled in any way the mods will allow.

 

Now, I seriously doubt that this happens to anyone more than I, mainly because I am well-known in my community and have a tremendous number of geocacher's telephone numbers. It is rare that I am at a cache and don't know the owner or know someone who does within say 3 phone calls.

 

So, if I can contact the owner, or last finder if I know them to be dependable, and can confirm that the cache is missing, whether I replace it (most often) or not AND the owner says "Thanks for the call, I will disable it until I can get there, go ahead and log it since you did find the location" then I am going to do that.

 

Why in the world would I make another trip here just to sign the log? Especially since I cache out-of-town more than in.

 

So all of this insinuation about cheating and lying and dishonor is bull. I and I suspect everyone who agrees with me on this issue does this only in these types of rare circumstance, not as a habit, and casting us as devils because perhaps one percent of our play doesn't match your standards is ludicrous.

 

Someone who logs a DNF as a find as a regular part of their game play is indeed flaunting the community standards of fair play... but that's not the topic here.

 

After a prolonged search I was FTF on a truly evil hide a couple of weeks ago (a bison tube on a fake stem of monkey grass inserted into a big cluster of same), and thought it might be the best camouflaged hide currently in Alabama. I recommended it to everyone.

 

A week later I went back with friends, who quickly found a barely-hidden cache on a tree limb at the coordinates. Someone passing through from Atlanta had DNF'd the cache and put out one of their own to sign. I called the cache owner, who confirmed that the second cache was bogus, I removed it and he deleted their log, with a fairly stern note.

 

That's the way the game should be played.

 

However, if that person had called the owner, described his search, confirmed that the real cache was missing, and replaced it with the owner's permission, he should be allowed the find. Same thing if he didn't replace it, but the owner said "Yes, that's the spot, the cache is gone, thanks... go ahead and log it and I will disable it until I can fix it". Either way, the cacher gets the find and life is good.

 

You may live in a rule-bound world with no exceptions... if so, enjoy it, but I won't live there!

[+baloo&bd]

It is truly unbelievable that this thread has gone on for 3 pages and others even longer.

 

1. Cache is there, you find it, you write name in log, it is found.

 

2. Cache is there, you find it, can not reach it, do not sign log. DNF with note explaining potential issue.

 

3. Cache is not there, you think it is where you are, you do not sign log. DNF

 

4. Cache is not there, you are CERTAIN this is EXACTLY the right location, you do not sign log. DNF

 

Found = I found what I was suppose to find. A cache with a log.

Did Not Find = It was not there, no cache or log.

Missing in Action = Not there to be found.

 

Why is this even a question?

 

Since analogies seem the flavor of the day (sorry mushtang) then if you ever get pulled over for speeding, don't have your proof of insurance (stateside and Illinois perspective), showing the officer where you usually have it in your wallet is not going to help. They will still document your DNF.

[+Always & Forever 5]

Thanks, TAR. I had pretty much resigned myself to believing that I was completely worthless, totally void of any integrity, and wondering where in the world my parents must have failed me in order to become the cheat, liar, and scumbag it seems most people here want to label me, just because this happened ONE time out of 380+ caches.

 

Guess I'm not such a bad guy afterall!

[+QSparrow]

A week later I went back with friends, who quickly found a barely-hidden cache on a tree limb at the coordinates. Someone passing through from Atlanta had DNF'd the cache and put out one of their own to sign. I called the cache owner, who confirmed that the second cache was bogus, I removed it and he deleted their log, with a fairly stern note.

 

That's the way the game should be played.

 

However, if that person had called the owner, described his search, confirmed that the real cache was missing, and replaced it with the owner's permission, he should be allowed the find. Same thing if he didn't replace it, but the owner said "Yes, that's the spot, the cache is gone, thanks... go ahead and log it and I will disable it until I can fix it". Either way, the cacher gets the find and life is good.

 

You may live in a rule-bound world with no exceptions... if so, enjoy it, but I won't live there!

So somebody else was playing by a non-standard set of rules, and their non-standard rules are bad, while your non-standard rules are ok. I get it now.

[+Always & Forever 5]

Since analogies seem the flavor of the day (sorry mushtang) then if you ever get pulled over for speeding, don't have your proof of insurance (stateside and Illinois perspective), showing the officer where you usually have it in your wallet is not going to help. They will still document your DNF.

 

Worst analogy yet. And, if you go to court and prove you have insurance, they will dismiss that aspect of the citation.

 

Sorta like a MIA geocache, huh?

[+baloo&bd]

Worst analogy yet. And, if you go to court and prove you have insurance, they will dismiss that aspect of the citation.

 

Sorta like a MIA geocache, huh?

 

Thanks, I probably should have pointed out that before going to court, you would have to FIND the proof of insurance to get credit.

[+Totem Clan]

How can you hunt a cache and claim a find if you didn't find the cache?

<snipped for space >

You may live in a rule-bound world with no exceptions... if so, enjoy it, but I won't live there!

Ok I'll give you all of that. But that is not what we're talking about.

 

This is about someone who goes out, does NOT find the cache, does NOT contact the owner, does NOT replace the cache, and does NOT do anything but walk in the woods to where he THINKS the cache MIGHT have been.

 

Is that finding a cache?

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

People have been comparing caching to golf. I think a better analogy would be that of hunting.

 

You don't go out hunting and then claim a trophy buck unless you bag it. Just because you had a nice walk through the woods and you saw where the buck bedded down, doesn't mean a had a 'successful' hunt. It may have been a good hunt. It may have been a fun hunt. It may have been one of the greatest days of your life. But you didn't get the buck.

 

How can you hunt a cache and claim a find if you didn't find the cache?

As a lifetime hunter and fisherman I can tell you any comparison of hunting to geocaching is completely bogus.

 

In hunting you don't know what you will see, where you will see it, or if it's a legitimate target until the moment it happens, and you can't repeat the experience or provide it to someone else. Far more hunting trips will be a DNF than not. The animal you seek will never be in the same spot twice. A GPS is helpful in getting to a tree stand, but of little use in getting to the deer.

 

Ethically, I would never claim to have taken game that I didn't, and buying a deer head or fish mount to hang on the wall is wrong by almost any standard.

 

I say by almost any, because I bought the deer head I have mounted. We were on a week-long trip and i had no way to save or transport the head and cape, so I just packed out the meat and later bought a head from a taxidermist that closely matched the one I had killed.

 

Again, exceptions can be made to any rule.

 

Golf has even less to do with geocaching and certainly is no measure of ethic or honor, particularly at the for-fun amateur level where scores are not kept. I golf with my son on occasion. I golf on crutches just as I cache on them. I may go through a dozen balls in nine holes - if I hit it off in the woods I just drop another ball and swing again. But there is no score-card, we're just having fun and enjoying each other's company.

 

I can't imagine someone like myself that golfs purely for fun and doesn't keep score ever saying he golfs par. Some rules exist for good reason and should never be violated.

 

There is simply no way for you to judge people by your perception of the rules, especially when you judge them by the exceptions rather than their regular practices.

[+Totem Clan]

It is truly unbelievable that this thread has gone on for 3 pages and others even longer.

 

1. Cache is there, you find it, you write name in log, it is found.

 

2. Cache is there, you find it, can not reach it, do not sign log. DNF with note explaining potential issue.

 

3. Cache is not there, you think it is where you are, you do not sign log. DNF

 

4. Cache is not there, you are CERTAIN this is EXACTLY the right location, you do not sign log. DNF

 

Found = I found what I was suppose to find. A cache with a log.

Did Not Find = It was not there, no cache or log.

Missing in Action = Not there to be found.

 

Why is this even a question?

 

Since analogies seem the flavor of the day (sorry mushtang) then if you ever get pulled over for speeding, don't have your proof of insurance (stateside and Illinois perspective), showing the officer where you usually have it in your wallet is not going to help. They will still document your DNF.

Thank you. That's what I've been saying.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

How can you hunt a cache and claim a find if you didn't find the cache?

<snipped for space >

You may live in a rule-bound world with no exceptions... if so, enjoy it, but I won't live there!

Ok I'll give you all of that. But that is not what we're talking about.

 

This is about someone who goes out, does NOT find the cache, does NOT contact the owner, does NOT replace the cache, and does NOT do anything but walk in the woods to where he THINKS the cache MIGHT have been.

 

Is that finding a cache?

No

[+Totem Clan]

Since analogies seem the flavor of the day (sorry mushtang) then if you ever get pulled over for speeding, don't have your proof of insurance (stateside and Illinois perspective), showing the officer where you usually have it in your wallet is not going to help. They will still document your DNF.

 

Worst analogy yet. And, if you go to court and prove you have insurance, they will dismiss that aspect of the citation.

 

Sorta like a MIA geocache, huh?

Yeah, but you have to go back to prove don't you?

 

 

I stick by my hunting analogy, since we are hunting caches. How can you claim a kill if you didn't get your quarry?

 

Edit to add if you will explain that, I'll except your point.

Edited March 13, 2007 by Totem Clan

[+Criminal]

Thanks, TAR. I had pretty much resigned myself to believing that I was completely worthless, totally void of any integrity, and wondering where in the world my parents must have failed me in order to become the cheat, liar, and scumbag it seems most people here want to label me, just because this happened ONE time out of 380+ caches.

 

Guess I'm not such a bad guy afterall!

You (and a few others) are taking it WAY too personally. Just because we don’t agree does not mean I (speaking only for myself) think you’re a bad person, it means we don’t agree. That’s what debate is about. If I question your support of allowing someone to claim a find on a cache they admit they did not find (the lie), it does not mean I would shun you at an event or speak ill of you to my neighbors. As a fellow cacher, I would enjoy meeting you and hearing your thoughts in person. If, at the end, we still did not agree, so be it.

 

I don’t think you’re a ‘bad guy’.

[+Totem Clan]

How can you hunt a cache and claim a find if you didn't find the cache?

<snipped for space >

You may live in a rule-bound world with no exceptions... if so, enjoy it, but I won't live there!

Ok I'll give you all of that. But that is not what we're talking about.

 

This is about someone who goes out, does NOT find the cache, does NOT contact the owner, does NOT replace the cache, and does NOT do anything but walk in the woods to where he THINKS the cache MIGHT have been.

 

Is that finding a cache?

No

Ok that is what we're are talking about. The OP was asking how you could claim a find on a cache under those conditions.

 

And the answer is, under those conditions you can't. It's at best DNF.

[+Totem Clan]

Thanks, TAR. I had pretty much resigned myself to believing that I was completely worthless, totally void of any integrity, and wondering where in the world my parents must have failed me in order to become the cheat, liar, and scumbag it seems most people here want to label me, just because this happened ONE time out of 380+ caches.

 

Guess I'm not such a bad guy afterall!

You (and a few others) are taking it WAY too personally. Just because we don’t agree does not mean I (speaking only for myself) think you’re a bad person, it means we don’t agree. That’s what debate is about. If I question your support of allowing someone to claim a find on a cache they admit they did not find (the lie), it does not mean I would shun you at an event or speak ill of you to my neighbors. As a fellow cacher, I would enjoy meeting you and hearing your thoughts in person. If, at the end, we still did not agree, so be it.

 

I don’t think you’re a ‘bad guy’.

I'll add myself to that too. I have not said anyone was a bad person or questioned any one's morals.

 

If we ever had the chance, I would go caching with any of you. And I hope the feeling is mutual.

[+Always & Forever 5]

You (and a few others) are taking it WAY too personally. Just because we don’t agree does not mean I (speaking only for myself) think you’re a bad person, it means we don’t agree. That’s what debate is about. If I question your support of allowing someone to claim a find on a cache they admit they did not find (the lie), it does not mean I would shun you at an event or speak ill of you to my neighbors. As a fellow cacher, I would enjoy meeting you and hearing your thoughts in person. If, at the end, we still did not agree, so be it.

 

I don’t think you’re a ‘bad guy’.

It was sarcasm, anyway, but posts like this...

 

It has nothing to do with honesty or truthfulness or doing what's right. It's all about boosing their self-esteem. It's because if they don't get a smiley then it causes irrepairable damage to their self-esteem and they think they're a failure. Their mommies told them if they aren't successful then other kids won't play with them and will ridicule them. It's also not their fault they didn't find it, it's the cache owner's fault because he didn't maintain the cache properly or the previous finder's fault for hiding it differently than the owner intended, or the government's fault because the sats were not being received that day. Doesn't really matter whose fault, it wasn't theirs, somebody else's fault, therefore they are ENTITLED to a smiley. Otherwise they'll go thru life as a failure, they won't get the promotion, and other people won't like them.

It's not about honesty and truthfulness. It's about doing whatever they can to get ahead of everyone else and show that they aren't a failure. That's the way they were raised. It shows their true moral worth.

...are from the people who actually ARE taking it way too seriously. To me, it's a fun way to spend a day. Nothing more, nothing less.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

... How can you claim a kill if you didn't get your quarry?

Edit to add if you will explain that, I'll except your point.

You can't, and no one here has said that you can... But if you can't see the difference between your scenario and the OP it doesn't matter if you accept my point, as it's pointless to discuss it with you. We're talking about things so far removed from one another that we're in fact having separate conversations!

[+tozainamboku]

A week later I went back with friends, who quickly found a barely-hidden cache on a tree limb at the coordinates. Someone passing through from Atlanta had DNF'd the cache and put out one of their own to sign. I called the cache owner, who confirmed that the second cache was bogus, I removed it and he deleted their log, with a fairly stern note.

 

That's the way the game should be played.

 

However, if that person had called the owner, described his search, confirmed that the real cache was missing, and replaced it with the owner's permission, he should be allowed the find. Same thing if he didn't replace it, but the owner said "Yes, that's the spot, the cache is gone, thanks... go ahead and log it and I will disable it until I can fix it". Either way, the cacher gets the find and life is good.

 

You may live in a rule-bound world with no exceptions... if so, enjoy it, but I won't live there!

So somebody else was playing by a non-standard set of rules, and their non-standard rules are bad, while your non-standard rules are ok. I get it now.

I don't know why you don't see the difference. The cache was replaced and a find claimed on the replacement without contacting the cache owner and getting permission to claim the find. The standard rule is that what constitutes a find is what is agreed upon between the cache owner and the finder. If the owner allows a find then it is a find. In the example that TAR gave, someone thought so much of their caching skills that they were certain the cache was missing and left a replacement cache and claimed a find on that. Perhaps he didn't even indicate in the log that he left the replacement. This can't be good for the game.

I understand the puritan definition of a find and mostly follow it myself. I've even gotten a reputation for not logging a find when I go caching with a group of cachers who have left a replacement cache with owner's permission when we didn't find the cache. But dispite the apparent logic of logging a "Found It" online only when you've actually found the cache - to call this the standard rule is wrong. I'll repeat again that nobody is forcing a puritan to claim a find on a cache he didn't find.

[+Always & Forever 5]

 

If we ever had the chance, I would go caching with any of you. And I hope the feeling is mutual.

 

It is as far as I'm concerned! I would hate to think that the difference of opinion over something so trivial would cause anybody to be enemies.

 

Like I've said earlier, life's too short.

[+Totem Clan]

You (and a few others) are taking it WAY too personally. Just because we don’t agree does not mean I (speaking only for myself) think you’re a bad person, it means we don’t agree. That’s what debate is about. If I question your support of allowing someone to claim a find on a cache they admit they did not find (the lie), it does not mean I would shun you at an event or speak ill of you to my neighbors. As a fellow cacher, I would enjoy meeting you and hearing your thoughts in person. If, at the end, we still did not agree, so be it.

 

I don’t think you’re a ‘bad guy’.

It was sarcasm, anyway, but posts like this...

 

It has nothing to do with honesty or truthfulness or doing what's right. It's all about boosing their self-esteem. It's because if they don't get a smiley then it causes irrepairable damage to their self-esteem and they think they're a failure. Their mommies told them if they aren't successful then other kids won't play with them and will ridicule them. It's also not their fault they didn't find it, it's the cache owner's fault because he didn't maintain the cache properly or the previous finder's fault for hiding it differently than the owner intended, or the government's fault because the sats were not being received that day. Doesn't really matter whose fault, it wasn't theirs, somebody else's fault, therefore they are ENTITLED to a smiley. Otherwise they'll go thru life as a failure, they won't get the promotion, and other people won't like them.

It's not about honesty and truthfulness. It's about doing whatever they can to get ahead of everyone else and show that they aren't a failure. That's the way they were raised. It shows their true moral worth.

...are from the people who actually ARE taking it way too seriously. To me, it's a fun way to spend a day. Nothing more, nothing less.

And that is something I think we can all agree on.

[+Criminal]

You (and a few others) are taking it WAY too personally. Just because we don’t agree does not mean I (speaking only for myself) think you’re a bad person, it means we don’t agree. That’s what debate is about. If I question your support of allowing someone to claim a find on a cache they admit they did not find (the lie), it does not mean I would shun you at an event or speak ill of you to my neighbors. As a fellow cacher, I would enjoy meeting you and hearing your thoughts in person. If, at the end, we still did not agree, so be it.

 

I don’t think you’re a ‘bad guy’.

It was sarcasm, anyway, but posts like this...

 

It has nothing to do with honesty or truthfulness or doing what's right. It's all about boosing their self-esteem. It's because if they don't get a smiley then it causes irrepairable damage to their self-esteem and they think they're a failure. Their mommies told them if they aren't successful then other kids won't play with them and will ridicule them. It's also not their fault they didn't find it, it's the cache owner's fault because he didn't maintain the cache properly or the previous finder's fault for hiding it differently than the owner intended, or the government's fault because the sats were not being received that day. Doesn't really matter whose fault, it wasn't theirs, somebody else's fault, therefore they are ENTITLED to a smiley. Otherwise they'll go thru life as a failure, they won't get the promotion, and other people won't like them.

It's not about honesty and truthfulness. It's about doing whatever they can to get ahead of everyone else and show that they aren't a failure. That's the way they were raised. It shows their true moral worth.

...are from the people who actually ARE taking it way too seriously. To me, it's a fun way to spend a day. Nothing more, nothing less.

Since you mentioned it, I think Wadcutter summed up the reason why most people log fake finds best. Most of the time, IMO, people are ashamed or embarrassed to log DNFs. I think it goes to general laziness, both physical and moral, to admit defeat.

[+GRANPA ALEX]

Like wimseyguy, I have replaced a cache container/log when it was missing/wet/damaged, verified by limited targets and earlier DNF's and a call, if I can . . . it is simply a courtesy to cachers that follow me and to the owner.

 

It, too, to me, is part of the game . . . service where you can and help others enjoy their hunts. Heck, I have a handy box of baggies with logs already folded in them, plus a bunch of odd containers to use. at the ready.

 

I email the owner to let them know what I did and they, then, have the options to leave it, replace it, archive it or whatever.

 

When I do this, I log a find on the cache for my efforts . . . the owners have the right to accept or reject my log - they have never rejected it and have been thankful. Beyond we two, IMO, it is no one elses business.

Edited March 13, 2007 by GRANPA ALEX

[+Criminal]

 

When I do this, I log a find on the cache for my efforts

 

I think that's what we're talking about. Effort does not equal a find, a find equals a find. If you placed the cache, you cannot truthfully claim to have found it since its location was never absent from you.

 

The smiley is not a reward, it's merely a tally.

[+Totem Clan]

... How can you claim a kill if you didn't get your quarry?

Edit to add if you will explain that, I'll except your point.

You can't, and no one here has said that you can... But if you can't see the difference between your scenario and the OP it doesn't matter if you accept my point, as it's pointless to discuss it with you. We're talking about things so far removed from one another that we're in fact having separate conversations!

The cache that the OP was talking about is missing. Cacher came along, did not try to contact the owner, and did not replace the cache. They did nothing. Then they claimed a 'Find' Note the logs.

 

January 20 by <name snipped>

This one is indeed GONE. We have done a few of these and know where they are at, but this one is not there.

 

March 11 by <name snipped>

I like so many others did not find the cache. I have found most of Amy's others like these and this one is definately missing. It is a shame as these are very nice quick caches that get you out in the country. Thanks for the hunt.

 

That is what we are talking about.

 

Hunting for the cache. Not finding the cache. Do nothing about it. And the then claiming a find.

 

That is what the OP and I are talking about.

 

I would have to agree with some of the points you made about other scenarios, but that's another topic. I'm talking about this topic. If want to talk about all the other scenarios, by all means start another thread. I might even agree with them. But here I must restrict my argument to the case at hand.