Claiming a find when cache is MIA

[+KKTH3]

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.

 

I agree. A while back I had a cache that started to pick up a few DNFs so I checked on it and sure enough it wasn't in place or anywhere close to where it was supposed to be. I had already been planning on making this cache a little larger so I had a replacement container in hand and put it back in the original hiding spot. One or two days later a find was posted for the cache, but it mentioned trading for an item that I did not put in the new cache. I went back out another time and checked the cache I had just placed and found the log to still be completely clean. Knowing the cacher that had just posted a find was not one to make bogus finds I was determined to figure out what exactly it was that they had found. Once again, I couldnt see any sign of the original cache, but just before heading back to my truck I spotted something that looked a tad out of place. Finally I found the original cache - over 50 feet away from its original hiding spot. It seems one of the early finders didnt like the original hiding spot and felt they could find a better hiding spot - and placed the cache a good deal away from where they found it.

 

Ultimately, I decided to keep the new location and I was able to fix the double cache situation before it got too badly out of hand. However, even if the owner agrees that there is no cache in the intended hiding place, it certainly is NOT always a case "where we know for a fact the cache is missing."

 

These days I always expand my search out a good distance away from the intended hiding spot of my own caches when doing maintenence on one of my own seemingly MIA caches. Come to think about it - just yesterday I had to fix one of our caches that had problems reported on it. I found the container and container lid in two separate places about 60-80 feet away from the cache. Good news was I got the cache back in action, but bad news that we lost all the contents, including the original log, in the process.

[+GRANPA ALEX]

 

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.

 

Well, yea, it really IS a reward, of sorts. Besides, if the owner, and it is up to him, wants to delete my log after I have provided full disclosure in what I did for him (& others) . . . that will be fine.

 

It is our game and our game say it is HIS (the owner's) cache allowing him to set the parameters of what logs are acceptable . . . some caches have really difficult logging procedures but, they are aceptable.

 

In this case, the owners have found service of their cache worthy of a found log . . . they can do that!

[+briansnat]

. 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.

 

Screaming? Let's not engage in hyperbole here. Anyway, how about backing up this statement? Let's see some examples. Being that I'm one of the most vocal posters on this subject you can start with checking my profile.

[Mushtang]

. 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.

 

Screaming? Let's not engage in hyperbole here. Anyway, how about backing up this statement? Let's see some examples. Being that I'm one of the most vocal posters on this subject you can start with checking my profile.

If he looks at your profile but doesn't actually see evidence of such bogus finds on your part, can he still claim he found them? Afterall, he went to the location, enjoyed the hunt, and saw whatever it was you brought him there to see. Does it really matter if he didn't actually find bogus numbers?

[+Always & Forever 5]

Screaming? Let's not engage in hyperbole here. Anyway, how about backing up this statement? Let's see some examples. Being that I'm one of the most vocal posters on this subject you can start with checking my profile.

Apparently you missed the word "usually". I didn't point out people by name, nor do I wish to "check profiles" to prove anything to anybody. If I offended you, I apologize. If the shoe doesn't fit, ignore it.

Edited March 13, 2007 by Always & Forever 5

[+tozainamboku]

. 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.

 

Screaming? Let's not engage in hyperbole here. Anyway, how about backing up this statement? Let's see some examples. Being that I'm one of the most vocal posters on this subject you can start with checking my profile.

If he looks at your profile but doesn't actually see evidence of such bogus finds on your part, can he still claim he found them? Afterall, he went to the location, enjoyed the hunt, and saw whatever it was you brought him there to see. Does it really matter if he didn't actually find bogus numbers?

I think A&F5 is under the same misconception I once had. I used to think that the puritans were overly concerned with other people's numbers. I thought they complained about people logging finds on MIA caches or multiple finds for an event because the people who did this were inflating their numbers so they look like "better cachers" than someone who didn't engage in the practice. fizzymagic set me straight. Most of the puritans could care less about your numbers. They are simple posting what they feel is the proper use of the "Found It" log. If you use it for something else they mostly don't care. You're not using it for what they see is the intended purpose and they don't mind telling you this but rarely will they actually say you are a bad person for doing this. Geocaching is a fun activity. Any keeping score is an individual matter. Certainly the find count is used to congratulate people on "milestones" or for friendly comparisons. But most people understand that find count has limitations. Like a friendly game of golf, "mulligans" and "gimmes" are going to be a part of the game.

[+Always & Forever 5]

I think A&F5 is under the same misconception I once had. I used to think that the puritans were overly concerned with other people's numbers.

Maybe...but it sure seems that they are. And, the golf analogy already took a hit earlier.

 

Dunno, maybe it's just me, but I don't give a rat's fuzzy behind what anybody else's numbers are. Seems to me if we all didn't care, this thread would have burned out on post #2, instead of kept alive for 4 pages.

[Mushtang]

I think A&F5 is under the same misconception I once had. I used to think that the puritans were overly concerned with other people's numbers.

Maybe...but it sure seems that they are. And, the golf analogy already took a hit earlier.

 

Dunno, maybe it's just me, but I don't give a rat's fuzzy behind what anybody else's numbers are. Seems to me if we all didn't care, this thread would have burned out on post #2, instead of kept alive for 4 pages.

Seems to you that if we were all like you, that this thread would have burned out on post #2? You're the second highest poster to this thread, with 20 posts (as of this post).

 

In your first post in this thread you came along and told a story about logging a find on a cache that wasn't there. If you didn't want people to talk about it, why did you bring it up? People told you that they thought you were wrong to log is as a find and you seemed to be offended that we'd have an opinion as to what you did.

 

In that same post you said that someone who logged a find in some other circumstance was, in your words, "just plain wrong". So why is it that you feel okay to tell us what you think is right and wrong, but when we discuss it, you don't feel we should discuss it for 4 pages? So what's the acceptable limit for you, 2 posts each? Maybe just one? (but you get 20)

[+Renegade Knight]

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?

 

Two weeks before hunting season you would have called that hunt a great success. Then you would come back with your gun and likely bag a buck because you had all the parts you needed for when the buck was home. There is difference between "there be bucks in this valley" and "there is a buck who beds down right here". If you brought a pen you could sign the bucks blankie and call it good. Without the cache owner telling you you found the right spot though you as a finder can't know. Owner are key. Finders log DNF's Unless the Onwer says otherwise. Also just because the owner says you can log doesn't mean you have too. I've done both with a DNF the most recent result of the owner saying "yeah based on your description you would have found it go ahead and log it".

 

Since you mention the log (taking the shot and bagging the buck) I've found caches where there is nothing left but the container. No log to sign and I've taken the find because I found the cache. There was a time when this site did not require logs in all caches. Micro's were excepted.

[Clan Riffster]

What's the difference? A DNF is a DNF

Uh.... The spelling? An MIA is an MIA

(Sorry. Couldn't resist)

 

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.

Sorry Trinity, this attitude of yours has voided any potential membership rights to the Pompous, Self Righteous, Arrogant, Fanatical Zealot Society. Please turn in your white robe until such time that you are willing to be judgmental and critical of those playing a game with no rules.

 

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.

Does seem kinda silly.

 

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...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.

Very well put, Ed.

 

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.

Especially when the game has no rules.

[+QSparrow]

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 didn't say there was no difference. I said that both scenarios were non-standard. I looked in the FAQ and it didn't say anything about a find being whatever the hider and the "finder" agree on. If this is a rule somewhere, please point me to it as there is plenty I haven't read about yet so I likely missed it.

 

I don't know about the caches around where you guys live, but out here they are usually hidden. Part of the challenge may be getting to the correct location. Once you get there, often the real challenge is finding the thing. Especially for me, the world's worst cacher. I'm the only DNF in long string of finds on a few caches. ohmy.gif But I like it that way. I'd sure get bored of this fast if I found every cache right away!

Edited March 13, 2007 by QSparrow

[Trinity's Crew]

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.

Sorry Trinity, this attitude of yours has voided any potential membership rights to the Pompous, Self Righteous, Arrogant, Fanatical Zealot Society. Please turn in your white robe until such time that you are willing to be judgmental and critical of those playing a game with no rules.

 

 

I didn't know there was a robe! If I start passing judgement on questionable finds today, how long before I can sign up to the PSRAFZS and get my robe?

[+wavector]

briansnat is right!

Logging a Find on a cache that is missing can be viewed as a disservice to fellow cachers . There are consequences that affect others in the community so logging the DNF "accurately" is good, it is a benefit to others and can increase the fun that they have.

 

Ed (The Alabama Rambler) is also right!

Contacting the owner, confirming that the cache is gone and replacing it with the owners permission is good, it is a benefit to others and can increase the fun that they have.

 

A cache isn't a container and a log book, Virtuals are caches, Events are caches, CITO's are caches, they don't have to offer log book signing to be fun, unique geocaching experiences, this is the position of this listing service.

 

Logging a Find when a cache is MIA can interfere with the enjoyment of others, it can directly impact their experience and numerous good examples have been cited to that effect.

 

Pretending that your smiley count is pure and that others have tainted smiley counts because they don't play by your made up rules doesn't affect anyone until it is publicly voiced as a standard. I have all sorts of made up rules that make good sense to me but I would never publicly voice them or expect other cachers to adhere to my made up standards.

[+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?

 

Two weeks before hunting season you would have called that hunt a great success. Then you would come back with your gun and likely bag a buck because you had all the parts you needed for when the buck was home. There is difference between "there be bucks in this valley" and "there is a buck who beds down right here". If you brought a pen you could sign the bucks blankie and call it good. Without the cache owner telling you you found the right spot though you as a finder can't know. Owner are key. Finders log DNF's Unless the Onwer says otherwise. Also just because the owner says you can log doesn't mean you have too. I've done both with a DNF the most recent result of the owner saying "yeah based on your description you would have found it go ahead and log it".

 

Since you mention the log (taking the shot and bagging the buck) I've found caches where there is nothing left but the container. No log to sign and I've taken the find because I found the cache. There was a time when this site did not require logs in all caches. Micro's were excepted.

There you go. That's a find in my book.

[+Totem Clan]

Let see if I can cover the spectrum of things that have been said here and voice where I stand on them.

 

1. A MIA cache, at which the cacher does not contact the owner, replace, or in anyway verify the location, is not a find.

 

2. A MIA cache at which the cacher contacts the owner and verifies the location and the owner gives the cacher permission to log the find, is a find if the cacher wants to log it as such.

 

3. A MIA cache which is replaced by the cacher without verifying the location and contacting the owner is not a find, and it should not be done.

 

4. A non-MIA cache that is found and recovered, but for whatever reason the log could not be signed is a find.

 

5. Caches that are containerless (events, virtuals...) can be logged as finds if they meet GC requirements (they are listed on the site) and the owner's ALRs are met.

 

I think that's all the different types/scenarios that were covered. I hope. And that is where I stand on each of them. I hope this will clear up what I feel and how I log caches.

[+Kealia]

Seems to me if we all didn't care [about the numbers], this thread would have burned out on post #2, instead of kept alive for 4 pages.

 

You're missing an important point. Logging a find on a missing cache tells others that the cache is still there.

 

Last year while in Hawaii my family and a friend spent 45 minutes hiking out to a spot and searching for another 30 minutes only to DNF the cache. We found the hiding spot, based on the hints, but no cache.

 

After going home and reading the previous logs, the last 4 finders all claimed finds because the "found the right spot". Had they logged DNFs, my PQ would have filtered these out and we never would have gone out.

 

Left my young daughter disappointed because she hiked and didn't find the cache. Made the friend who came along less than enthusiastic about his first caching experience.

 

So yes, numbers aside, it does affect other people.

 

And you can lump me in with Briansnat. I'm vocal about this as well - feel free to check my profile for multiple logs, etc. as well. Don't use words like "usually" just to try to prove a point when it's not warranted.

[+QSparrow]

Here is what the FAQ says to do when a cache is MIA:

 

What do I do if I find out that a cache has gone missing?

 

If you visit a cache location and the cache is missing, always make sure to log the cache as "not found" on the web site so the cache owner knows. If you notice that the logs show an unusual number of "not found" logs, please inform this web site so we can check on the cache page. The cache can be temporarily disabled so the cache owner can check in on it. Sometimes, though rarely, when the cache owner cannot be contacted we can either allow folks to adopt the cache or have the cache removed completely from the site. We rely a lot on the geocaching community to let us know the status of caches in their area.

 

What could be simpler?

[+wavector]

feel free to check my profile for multiple logs

 

Multiple logs are fine if the cache is designed to be logged multiple times.

There is nothing wrong with multiple logs on a cache and your lack of multiple logs does nothing to improve the quality of your smilies.

It is fine to log caches that are designed for multiple finds, multiple times.

Moving caches, Event caches that use a recycled cache page and multi-target caches all exist, all are within the guidelines and all result in multiple logs on a single cache.

 

You are advancing the "my smilies are better" theory and it isn't warranted.

[+baloo&bd]

Event caches that use a recycled cache page and multi-target caches all exist, all are within the guidelines and all result in multiple logs on a single cache.

 

Point of clarification: I think what is being referred to is events that log "temporary caches" as multiple "attends".

Edited March 13, 2007 by baloo&bd

[+wavector]

"temporary caches" as multiple "attends"

 

This particular bee gets under a lot of bonnets!

 

Logging a MIA cache as a Find has repercussions, it can interfere with the enjoyment of others in the community, as far as I am aware it is not an accepted practice anywhere and the reasons are rooted in reality. The excellent examples quoted on this thread should convince any cacher that it is not an acceptable practice.

 

Allowing temporary caches to be logged as Found using the Attended log type is peculiar, that is my considered opinion but it is not a standard to which I think others must adhere and I recognize that this practice is accepted in some areas. There are no guidelines which prohibit or even comment on this practice and I cannot see any repercussions for the community, can you?

[+Googling Hrpty Hrrs]

Apparently you missed the word "usually". I didn't point out people by name, nor do I wish to "check profiles" to prove anything to anybody. If I offended you, I apologize. If the shoe doesn't fit, ignore it.

 

If you're not checking other folks' profiles, how did you come to the conclusion about what other people "usually" do?

 

Dunno, maybe it's just me, but I don't give a rat's fuzzy behind what anybody else's numbers are. Seems to me if we all didn't care, this thread would have burned out on post #2, instead of kept alive for 4 pages.

 

The loose loggers always get this mixed up to me. It's not the "puritans" that care, worry , obsess about the numbers from what I can see. It's the folks that will look for absolutely ANY way to log another smiley that are obsessed. Logging MIA caches is one way. Multiple events & pocket caches are other examples we all know about.

 

Doesn't matter to me one way or another, but I just wish the extraneous loggers would quit switching it around and admit that they are the ones obsessed with the numbers, not the folks who log a measly one "Found It" per signed log.

[+Always & Forever 5]

The loose loggers always get this mixed up to me. It's not the "puritans" that care, worry , obsess about the numbers from what I can see. It's the folks that will look for absolutely ANY way to log another smiley that are obsessed. Logging MIA caches is one way. Multiple events & pocket caches are other examples we all know about.

 

Doesn't matter to me one way or another, but I just wish the extraneous loggers would quit switching it around and admit that they are the ones obsessed with the numbers, not the folks who log a measly one "Found It" per signed log.

 

Yeah. My 1 out of 387 finds (0.258%) qualifies me as an obsessed "loose logger", I guess (whatever the heck that is).

 

It sure sounds like it matters to you. Geez, get over it, please.

 

If you visit a cache location and the cache is missing, always make sure to log the cache as "not found" on the web site so the cache owner knows. If you notice that the logs show an unusual number of "not found" logs, please inform this web site so we can check on the cache page. The cache can be temporarily disabled so the cache owner can check in on it.

 

By the way, if any of you have taken the time to read any of my posts at face value, you'll see I did EXACTLY what QSparrow stated above. Only after the owner replaced the missing cache did they offer me the find.

Edited March 14, 2007 by Always & Forever 5

[+geomann1]

Isn't part of the problem with MIAs that some people are placing too many caches to look after them and quickly determine that one is MIA? Isn't it an obligation of a cache placer to be on top of the MIA issue, unless a cache is posted as being "orphaned"?

 

I've just started hiding caches (6 to date); all of them are near by house or areas that I drive by frequently so I can do a quick check on them.

 

My strategy for minimizing MIAs during searches is to check to see if there has been a recent find.

 

To throw in my two cents, I would only log a cache if I actually found it; although in one instance I logged a find, but elected not to try to sign the log book for fear of giving its location away to muggles. As a cache hider, I don't really care what anyone logs; its only a game.

[+briansnat]

Sorry Trinity, this attitude of yours has voided any potential membership rights to the Pompous, Self Righteous, Arrogant, Fanatical Zealot Society. Please turn in your white robe until such time that you are willing to be judgmental and critical of those playing a game with no rules.

 

So those of us who dislike the practice of misleading the geocaching community via phony found it logs are "pompous, self righteous, arrogant and fanatical" ?

[Trinity's Crew]

Sorry Trinity, this attitude of yours has voided any potential membership rights to the Pompous, Self Righteous, Arrogant, Fanatical Zealot Society. Please turn in your white robe until such time that you are willing to be judgmental and critical of those playing a game with no rules.

 

So those of us who dislike the practice of misleading the geocaching community via phony found it logs are "pompous, self righteous, arrogant and fanatical" ?

 

No more so than the self-esteem boosting, faultless smiley grubbing failures whose mommies told them if they aren't successful then other kids won't play with them and will ridicule them because they have little or no moral worth.

 

BTW, I was kidding about wanting to join the PSRAFZS. I assume you have to be a platinum member to get in.

 

Edit: Removed a quote, a needless slam, and paraphrased for clarity.

Edited March 14, 2007 by Trinity's Crew

[+JoesBar]

This hobby is played kinda loose. There's no referee to throw a flag or make a call. We each have latitude to make our own rules.

While it bugs me when this type of thing happens, if another cacher wants to add to their count, I don't care. But for myself, I hold a different standard. When I seek cache it's; no cache, no find. Just the breaks of the game.

[Clan Riffster]

So those of us who dislike the practice of misleading the geocaching community via phony found it logs are "pompous, self righteous, arrogant and fanatical" ?

No, not all of you. Just the pompous, self righteous, arrogant, fanatical zealots amongst you.

[+tozainamboku]

One thing I've learned - if you do delete a bogus log from someone who didn't find your cache don't use what the moderators here call "potty language" or your cache will be archived. Apparently Geocaching.com wants to treat geocachers like 5 year-olds. The puzzle cache that several So. California geocachers have been working on has now been archived. Because of the nature of the puzzle it doesn't meet the new guidelines so they'll probably not enable it even if the owner changes the language he use in his log.

[+QSparrow]

By the way, if any of you have taken the time to read any of my posts at face value, you'll see I did EXACTLY what QSparrow stated above. Only after the owner replaced the missing cache did they offer me the find.

What I posted does not include claiming a find on a missing cache.

[+baloo&bd]

Allowing temporary caches to be logged as Found using the Attended log type is peculiar, that is my considered opinion but it is not a standard to which I think others must adhere and I recognize that this practice is accepted in some areas. There are no guidelines which prohibit or even comment on this practice and I cannot see any repercussions for the community, can you?

 

OT so we can move to discuss further. The guidelines do address this in that a cache has to have a reasonable expectation of permanence, 90 days if memory serves. In the big scheme of things, this activity only hurts those that are logging them, reputation-wise. Probably more ignored by GC since it seems to only be practiced in select geographic areas by a small group of smiley hounds.

 

Logging MIA's, are another story as you pointed out. Some, especially some users of GSAK, load caches in their GPSr's to show the status of the last 4 or 5 logs. FFNF appended to the end of the number would indicate the last two seekers found it, while the third to last did not. FNNN, which could be created by the last seeker logging an MIA as found to mean it was there but the previous seekers just overlooked.

 

Yes, it can be called a lazy practice but to someone who simply loads up the GPSr and goes, which if you think about it is GC at it's purest, this becomes an issue.

 

Even with out that, you simply can not find something that is not there.

[+sbell111]

Allowing temporary caches to be logged as Found using the Attended log type is peculiar, that is my considered opinion but it is not a standard to which I think others must adhere and I recognize that this practice is accepted in some areas. There are no guidelines which prohibit or even comment on this practice and I cannot see any repercussions for the community, can you?

 

OT so we can move to discuss further. The guidelines do address this in that a cache has to have a reasonable expectation of permanence, 90 days if memory serves. In the big scheme of things, this activity only hurts those that are logging them, reputation-wise. Probably more ignored by GC since it seems to only be practiced in select geographic areas by a small group of smiley hounds.

 

Logging MIA's, are another story as you pointed out. Some, especially some users of GSAK, load caches in their GPSr's to show the status of the last 4 or 5 logs. FFNF appended to the end of the number would indicate the last two seekers found it, while the third to last did not. FNNN, which could be created by the last seeker logging an MIA as found to mean it was there but the previous seekers just overlooked.

 

Yes, it can be called a lazy practice but to someone who simply loads up the GPSr and goes, which if you think about it is GC at it's purest, this becomes an issue.

 

Even with out that, you simply can not find something that is not there.

There is also the fact that many cachers use this GSAK feature, read the cache page, but do not read the logs (to avoid spoilers). Edited March 14, 2007 by sbell111

[+wimseyguy]

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?

 

<SNIP>

 

What about 2A, 2B, 2C: Cache is there (more or less), you have it in your hand, but it is no longer intact or the logsheet is no longer signable due to a.) contact with the Caligula sized weed wacker mentioned a page or two ago, b.) being burned almost beyond recognition, or c.) the log sheet is simply a soaking wad of pulpy mess?

I would call all three of these gray area situations a find, and have done so in the past. Life isn't black and white, and neither should geocaching be either. (Although I recently catered a cocktail reception for a fashion show and was asked to only serve black and white and green foods to match the theme. )

 

Sorry, no ridiculous analogies to add to the discussion at this time.

[+wimseyguy]

Sorry Trinity, this attitude of yours has voided any potential membership rights to the Pompous, Self Righteous, Arrogant, Fanatical Zealot Society. Please turn in your white robe until such time that you are willing to be judgmental and critical of those playing a game with no rules.

 

So those of us who dislike the practice of misleading the geocaching community via phony found it logs are "pompous, self righteous, arrogant and fanatical" ?

Fetch...THE COMFY CHAIR!

[+briansnat]

What about 2A, 2B, 2C: Cache is there (more or less), you have it in your hand, but it is no longer intact or the logsheet is no longer signable due to a.) contact with the Caligula sized weed wacker mentioned a page or two ago, b.) being burned almost beyond recognition, or c.) the log sheet is simply a soaking wad of pulpy mess?

 

I think if you found enough of the cache to be reasonably certain that it is/was the cache there is nothing wrong with logging a "found it".

 

Finding an empty container at the site labeled "geocache" I would consider a find.

Finding a velcro strip on the bottom of a bench, I don't think so.

 

Finding the remains of a container, logbook and trade items that went through a lawn mower, you could make a reasonable argument that it's a find.

Finding a few plastic trinkets near the cache site. Nah.

 

Finding the logbook and trinkets strewn about, but no container, sure its a find.

Finding a plastic lid on the ground. Nope

 

Finding the cache, but the lid is frozen shut. If I were the owner, I'd allow the find.

Seeing a cache up in a tree but not climbing the tree to sign the log. Uh uh.

 

I look at it like a dollar bill that went through the wash. There has to be enough of the bill remaining for the bank to accept it. If you just have a corner of the bill, you have part of the bill, you know it was a bill, but you really can't say you have the bill because you can't spend it.

[+baloo&bd]

What about 2A, 2B, 2C: Cache is there (more or less), you have it in your hand, but it is no longer intact or the logsheet is no longer signable due to a.) contact with the Caligula sized weed wacker mentioned a page or two ago, b.) being burned almost beyond recognition, or c.) the log sheet is simply a soaking wad of pulpy mess?

I would call all three of these gray area situations a find, and have done so in the past. Life isn't black and white, and neither should geocaching be either. (Although I recently catered a cocktail reception for a fashion show and was asked to only serve black and white and green foods to match the theme. )

 

Sorry, no ridiculous analogies to add to the discussion at this time.

 

Point acknowledged and you are correct, there are areas of gray, however the discussion started over an MIA, the key to that being the "M" part.

 

In your examples, A & C are common and the generally accepted practice is to sign a piece of paper and stick it in there, then notify the owner what you had to do.

 

B is purely going to be a judgement call, however (IMHO) a one-time judgement call becasue 1. is it really identifiable and 2. once that call is made, the owner should disable until they get out their to fix it. The owner does need to make the calls and, were it me, subsequent finds would not count and I would note that when I disable it.

Edited March 14, 2007 by baloo&bd

[+Wadcutter]

 

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.

 

Not taking it all too seriously at all. I really don't care if you never find a cache and continue logging all your DNFs as finds. I sure don't understand a person doing it other than it's their engrained psyche that they can't bear to face anyone that they may have failed at something. Pretty immature. I'm just trying to explain why some people won't log a DNF. It shows their morale character.

A salesman doesn't tell his boss that he almost made the sale therefore he should still get the commission. The airline pilot doesn't get by by almost finding the airport. Or to put it more in terms some of you can relate to, you almost put the pickle on the hamburger or almost scored a win on your XBox.

Edited March 15, 2007 by Wadcutter

[+DonB]

I had a case where I feel I was justified in claiming the cache even though it was missing. There was a 10 stage cache in Watertown,WI. (GCTMJR) that after doing the first 9 stages all I found was the lid from the cache. Obviously there wasn't any log to sign so I took a picture of the lid, uploaded it to geocaching.com and emailed the owner that it was gone. I also told him that after doing the first 9 stages I would like to still claim the cache even though I couldn't sign the log. He didn't object and went the next day and replaced the cache.

 

If I would have wanted to be sneaky about it I could have just logged it as a find because no one could have proved I didn't sign the log, and let the next cacher report it as missing.

[+Always & Forever 5]

Not taking it all too seriously at all. I really don't care if you never find a cache and continue logging all your DNFs as finds. I sure don't understand a person doing it other than it's their engrained psyche that they can't bear to face anyone that they may have failed at something. Pretty immature. I'm just trying to explain why some people won't log a DNF. It shows their morale character.

And, posts like this show you really do care, no matter how many times you claim "I really don't care".

 

Another thing, Dr. Phil...I fail to see how "morale character" can be defined from this. However, morale character is certainly measurable in those who continually judge, belittle, and berate others.

[+tozainamboku]

Not taking it all too seriously at all. I really don't care if you never find a cache and continue logging all your DNFs as finds. I sure don't understand a person doing it other than it's their engrained psyche that they can't bear to face anyone that they may have failed at something. Pretty immature. I'm just trying to explain why some people won't log a DNF. It shows their morale character.

And, posts like this show you really do care, no matter how many times you claim "I really don't care".

 

Another thing, Dr. Phil...I fail to see how "morale character" can be defined from this. However, morale character is certainly measurable in those who continually judge, belittle, and berate others.

I think some people take what the puritans say too personally. Both the geocaching puritans and the religious Puritans were known for criticizing the moral character of others. Instead of responding in kind and criticizing the puritans, I prefer to wear my Scarlet Letter proudly on my chest (see the section of my profile labeled Truth In Numbers).

[+BlueDeuce]

(see the section of my profile labeled Truth In Numbers).

 

Huh, I always pictured you with a mohawk.

[Clan Riffster]

Both the geocaching puritans and the religious Puritans were known for criticizing the moral character of others.

Those are the ones most deserving of contempt.

[+Wadcutter]

And, posts like this show you really do care, no matter how many times you claim "I really don't care".

 

Another thing, Dr. Phil...I fail to see how "morale character" can be defined from this. However, morale character is certainly measurable in those who continually judge, belittle, and berate others.

Sorry, but I really don't care what rationale you use to justify your "finds". It doesn't really matter to me. I know that I've signed the logs on my finds and those that I couldn't find were DNFs. I'm not in competition with anyone. I'm just in this game for my game.

So you can go ahead and play your mind game however you want to justify in your own mind. If logging a find for not finding anything makes sense in your world and you want to get your find count up then go ahead and do whatever it is you think you can live with. Don't worry tho, the other kids probably still won't play with you but your mommy will think you are a success.

Personally, I raised my kids, and grandkids, to be a bit more honest. But it's your life and your kids will follow where you lead them. Except in this case I guess they'll follow you to nowhere since there's nothing there at the end of your find except an imagination.

Edited March 16, 2007 by Wadcutter

[+ReadyOrNot]

And, posts like this show you really do care, no matter how many times you claim "I really don't care".

 

Another thing, Dr. Phil...I fail to see how "morale character" can be defined from this. However, morale character is certainly measurable in those who continually judge, belittle, and berate others.

Sorry, but I really don't care what rationale you use to justify your "finds". It doesn't really matter to me. I know that I've signed the logs on my finds and those that I couldn't find were DNFs. I'm not in competition with anyone. I'm just in this game for my game.

So you can go ahead and play your mind game however you want to justify in your own mind. If logging a find for not finding anything makes sense in your world and you want to get your find count up then go ahead and do whatever it is you think you can live with. Don't worry tho, the other kids probably still won't play with you but your mommy will think you are a success.

Personally, I raised my kids, and grandkids, to be a bit more honest. But it's your life and your kids will follow where you lead them. Except in this case I guess they'll follow you to nowhere since there's nothing there at the end of your find except an imagination.

 

Bravo! Well said!

[Clan Riffster]

So you can go ahead and play your mind game however you want to justify in your own mind.

Good for you! Hopefully we can all work toward this degree of tolerance. I praise your high standards, but I praise even more your willingness to allow folks to play this game their way, even when their way goes against the norm. Thanx Brother!

[+Totem Clan]

So you can go ahead and play your mind game however you want to justify in your own mind.

Good for you! Hopefully we can all work toward this degree of tolerance. I praise your high standards, but I praise even more your willingness to allow folks to play this game their way, even when their way goes against the norm. Thanx Brother!

Exactly. I will log my finds by my high standards, because that is how I believe it should be. If you want to log it some other way, as long as you are not hurting the game for others, more power to you.

 

I think we could all do from a good dose of tolerance.

[+SGT red jeep]

I've found pieces of caches, empty caches, obvious hiding places built or hollowed out but missing the cache container, and caches with missing or destroyed log books.

 

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) , logged an empty container or one with a missing or destroyed logbook but leaving a piece of paper or a small logbook behind with my name to prove I was there.

In these cases, I e-mail the cache owner with what I found describing the cache and condition.

 

But if I find no evidence of the cache, I log a DNF

I've been losing sleep at night thinking about the missing cache in the log.

My conscience is killing me. I keep hearing voices in my head calling "Cheater! Cheater! Cheater!".

AAARRRG

I franticly searched back through my logs and finally found the offensive varmit and DNFed the darn thang.

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LU...e6-65aa1c78a888

Will you let me play now. I promise I will be good. I won't lie no more, I promise.

[+ReadyOrNot]

Exactly. I will log my finds by my high standards, because that is how I believe it should be. If you want to log it some other way, as long as you are not hurting the game for others, more power to you.

 

I think we could all do from a good dose of tolerance.

 

So who determines if you are hurting the game for others? If you determine who it's hurting and you determine what's right and wrong, that lays the groundwork for a very disturbing situation.

 

Reminds me of halloween in my neighborhood when I was a child. The neighbors were out of town, but still wanted to participate. They placed a huge bowl of candy outside with a note "Please take one". Sitting back and watching what happened was a huge lesson in human nature. Some kids took only one piece of candy, while some kids took advantage of the opportunity and loaded their bags with as much as they could pile in. Some kids took 2 or 3, thinking that they weren't as bad as the kids that were hoarding the candy.

 

I see the same kids on these forums, just all grown up now. Some take one piece, because they know that's what they are suppose to do. Some just pile the numbers into their bag because they can and because noone is stopping them, they assume it's okay. Then there are those that take just 2 or 3 pieces. They aren't the worst, so no harm no foul.

 

Just take a single piece kids and realize that just because it feels good doesn't make it right.

[+Totem Clan]

Exactly. I will log my finds by my high standards, because that is how I believe it should be. If you want to log it some other way, as long as you are not hurting the game for others, more power to you.

 

I think we could all do from a good dose of tolerance.

 

So who determines if you are hurting the game for others? If you determine who it's hurting and you determine what's right and wrong, that lays the groundwork for a very disturbing situation.

 

By hurting the game I'm talking about things like:

 

Moving the cache from where it should be.

 

Cache Police.

 

Leaving the caches in the open so that it gets muggled.

 

And to a much lesser extent, logging a missing cache as a find without informing the owner, and therefore cause other to think it's there.

 

Basically I was saying, "I'll log by my standards, you log by yours, but none of us should thrash the playing field".

[+briansnat]

Not taking it all too seriously at all. I really don't care if you never find a cache and continue logging all your DNFs as finds. I sure don't understand a person doing it other than it's their engrained psyche that they can't bear to face anyone that they may have failed at something. Pretty immature. I'm just trying to explain why some people won't log a DNF. It shows their morale character.

And, posts like this show you really do care, no matter how many times you claim "I really don't care".

 

Another thing, Dr. Phil...I fail to see how "morale character" can be defined from this. However, morale character is certainly measurable in those who continually judge, belittle, and berate others.

 

I don't think people who log phony finds are the moral equivalent of say an adulter or a thief. Yet if they are willing to cheat at something so insignificant as geoaching, their tax returns probably make for interesting reading.

[+sbell111]

Not taking it all too seriously at all. I really don't care if you never find a cache and continue logging all your DNFs as finds. I sure don't understand a person doing it other than it's their engrained psyche that they can't bear to face anyone that they may have failed at something. Pretty immature. I'm just trying to explain why some people won't log a DNF. It shows their morale character.

And, posts like this show you really do care, no matter how many times you claim "I really don't care".

 

Another thing, Dr. Phil...I fail to see how "morale character" can be defined from this. However, morale character is certainly measurable in those who continually judge, belittle, and berate others.

I don't think people who log phony finds are the moral equivalent of say an adulter or a thief. Yet if they are willing to cheat at something so insignificant as geoaching, their tax returns probably make for interesting reading.

The reason consensus will never be reached on issues like this is because you (and others) insist on framing the discussion in this way. Is it cheating if a cache owner offers the 'find' and the seeker accepts? I think not. Edited March 16, 2007 by sbell111