Jump to content

Claiming a find when cache is MIA


SueEmAll

Recommended Posts

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.

 

When you go to log that cache there are several options. The big two are "Found It" and "Didn't Find It". If you you didn't find the cache, yet you choose "Found It", how exactly should that be framed?

Link to comment

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.

Gee...that's might big of you. Thank you so much for your insight. However, I don't think that offering a find to a seeker of a cache that is MIA, and them accepting the offer, is cheating.

 

I don't feel the need to cheat at my tax return, either, by the way, but thanks for your input there, as well.

 

Oh, and thanks for throwing out the "cheater" term once again. I guess we're just not worthy of caching with you, should the opportunity arise. Oh, how will we ever survive?

Link to comment

Is it cheating if a cache owner offers the 'find' and the seeker accepts? I think not.

It's not cheating because there are no benefits to doing so. Nobody wins. Nobody is better at caching based on find counts. This is not a competition. It's just an exhibition. Please, no wagering. (but I digress)

 

However, if you don't find something, and then claim you did find it, you're being untruthful - no matter what the owner of the cache says. He's only allowing you to claim on his cache page that you found it without him challanging you. But he and you both know that if you log a Find on a cache that was MIA (which he had to replace after you'd left), that you didn't find it.

Link to comment

However, if you don't find something, and then claim you did find it, you're being untruthful - no matter what the owner of the cache says. He's only allowing you to claim on his cache page that you found it without him challanging you. But he and you both know that if you log a Find on a cache that was MIA (which he had to replace after you'd left), that you didn't find it.

And, I don't see where anybody is arguing that point. So, we're all in agreement, then?

Link to comment

However, if you don't find something, and then claim you did find it, you're being untruthful - no matter what the owner of the cache says.

 

A group of geocachers goes out geocaching and they go to a set of co-ordinates to look for a container. They find that the container is missing and then find that one of the group actually has the owners telephone number. They phone the owner and they find that he is at home. They describe what they have found and the owner tells them that the container is indeed missing and tells them to replace it. They replace the container, sign the log book and then carry on their way. They arrive home and they write this log : "Got to the coordinates and found that the cache was gone. Replaced the cache with the owners permission and signed the log. Thanks for the cache."

 

This is all correct, it conforms to common sense and it conforms to what they actually found when they got to the coordinates. Calling anyone involved in that situation untruhful is not warranted.

If they had waited until the cache owner showed up with a new cache then would they be telling the truth?

If the cache owner showed up and they all turned their backs while he hid the new cache then they would be telling the truth? :):D:D

 

Do you see a lack of common sense in the standard you want to adopt?

I do.

Honesty and virtue have nothing to do with this type of hair-splitting, the cachers were not being untruthful at any stage of their adventure.

I can see how certain smiley obssessed people might object, actually I can't. :)

 

Perhaps you can paint a common sense approach where everyone is truthful but I doubt you can given your original premise.

Link to comment

A group of geocachers goes out geocaching and they go to a set of co-ordinates to look for a container. They find that the container is missing and then find that one of the group actually has the owners telephone number. They phone the owner and they find that he is at home. They describe what they have found and the owner tells them that the container is indeed missing and tells them to replace it. They replace the container, sign the log book and then carry on their way. They arrive home and they write this log : "Got to the coordinates and found that the cache was gone. Replaced the cache with the owners permission and signed the log. Thanks for the cache."

 

This is all correct, it conforms to common sense and it conforms to what they actually found when they got to the coordinates. Calling anyone involved in that situation untruhful is not warranted.

If they had waited until the cache owner showed up with a new cache then would they be telling the truth?

If the cache owner showed up and they all turned their backs while he hid the new cache then they would be telling the truth? :):D:D

 

Do you see a lack of common sense in the standard you want to adopt?

I do.

Honesty and virtue have nothing to do with this type of hair-splitting, the cachers were not being untruthful at any stage of their adventure.

I can see how certain smiley obssessed people might object, actually I can't. :)

 

Perhaps you can paint a common sense approach where everyone is truthful but I doubt you can given your original premise.

Why did you need to go back into the grey area for your example? The original post is about people who don't find a cache, don't replace it, don't sign any log, yet claim a find. That's what we're talking about here. I agree there is some wiggle room in the middle.

Link to comment

When you go to log that cache there are several options. The big two are "Found It" and "Didn't Find It". If you you didn't find the cache, yet you choose "Found It", how exactly should that be framed?

 

If a cache is designed to be found multiple times (eg. moving cache) and a cacher logs multiple finds on that cache do you think they are doing something wrong?

Link to comment

When you go to log that cache there are several options. The big two are "Found It" and "Didn't Find It". If you you didn't find the cache, yet you choose "Found It", how exactly should that be framed?

 

If a cache is designed to be found multiple times (eg. moving cache) and a cacher logs multiple finds on that cache do you think they are doing something wrong?

 

:D

 

Same drama, different thread!

Link to comment

I agree there is some wiggle room in the middle.

 

Claiming a find when a cache is MIA is exactly what they are doing. It isn't a grey area at all. They arrived at the coordinates and the cache was gone. Mushtang is saying it is cut and dried, they are being untruthful when they use the Found log type. I am pointing out that they are not being untruthful at all. The cache was missing in action and the claim they are making is perfectly honest and straightforward, common sense should tell anyone that is the case.

 

It isn't wiggling, even though the cache is MIA they are all being honest and truthful.

Simply making the claim over and over that people must be lying because this website only offers limited choices is not a valid approach to figuring out the legitimate ways that people can log a cache that is missing in action. Once the exception is established then the rule has to go out the window, in this case the rule seems to be calling them untruthful, just read the post oiver mine and see that this is the case. Claiming that people are being untruthful may be a reflection of the value that the claimants are placing on the smiley and have little to do with thoise geocaching. The geocachers I described are not doing anything wrong. I think this is clear, others do not. Do you think Mushtang will accept that they were telling the truth or will he make them jump through hoops of un-common sense before backing off. Perhaps he thinks they have to come back 24 hours later or something, I am not sure, that is why I asked.

In every case there are exceptions to absolute statements. Even though the cache is missing in action in the scenario I outlined no one is being untruthful, are they?

Edited by wavector
Link to comment
Claiming a find when a cache is MIA is exactly what they are doing. It isn't a grey area at all. They arrived at the coordinates and the cache was gone. Mushtang is saying it is cut and dried, they are being untruthful when they use the Found log type. I am pointing out that they are not being untruthful at all. The cache was missing in action and the claim they are making is perfectly honest and straightforward, common sense should tell anyone that is the case.

 

So when they click "Found It" in the above example, what are they saying they found?

 

Look, anyone can log these MIA caches. They can log them more than once. Theoretically, they can sit in front of their computer and log as many caches as they like as many times as they like. I don't necessarily think they believe they are lying when they do it, because they have worked everything out in their mind to legitimize it.

"I KNOW it was supposed to be there."

"I left a new cache there, and I found THAT one."

"The cache owner said I could log it."

"No one would expect me to actually go back to the cache again."

 

For what? A number? A little emoticon? I just don't get it. The numbers just don't mean that much to me.

 

BTW- Serious question with no snarkiness intended: How many moving caches have you found wavector? I can't find any locals that have seen one. Are they a common cache type for your area?

Edited by Googling Hrpty Hrrs
Link to comment

 

So when they click "Found It" in the above example, what are they saying they found?

The numbers just don't mean that much to me.

BTW- Serious question with no snarkiness intended: How many moving caches have you found wavector? I can't find any locals that have seen one. Are they a common cache type for your area?

 

In my example they are claiming they found my cache. I think the correct logs would be a DNF followed by a Find but I don't quibble about DNF's as many people don't log them. I would view any offer of help with a cache as friendly. If someone can't find one of my caches with my phone help it is gone for all common sense purposes, hence the DNF. Even if I find the original over there later on, the replacement stays. If someone wanted to help and offer a temporary fix I would say, yes, please help. I have caches that are about the hide, some are about the location, some are about the camo, it doesn't matter, I do not have to go down there and ensure that they are not peeking when I put the cache back to satisfy some silly standard that others try to foist onto me.

 

A far as I am concerned the logic of smilies is unwinnable and common sense is the only metric.

The Logic of Smilies - A party of five geocachers is seeking a cache and they phone me for help and tell me they have found a pile of sticks. I ask the caller to tell the others not to listen, this ensures that they will never need to DNF the cache. The one I am talking agrees to be the new replacement cache hider. While the rest are turned around the designated cache hider will put the replacement cache container back under the sticks. When the other four geocachers turn around the helper will tell them that I said to check under the sticks again, they must have missed it. They will check under the sticks and that is a Find. The designated helper cannot find it all as he is helping to hide it. I do tell my designated helper that he should log a DNF saying it is not there followed immediately by a Note saying it is there. All is going along fine until an unexpected noise causes everyone hiding their eyes to peek just as the cache is being replaced, :D Now no one can even log it because obviously they have not really found it, they peeked as it was being replaced. Since they have seen it being replaced they now know it is a replacement and they all need to log a DNF on the cache. Just then I arrive and tell them since it is 11:00PM now, go get a coffee come back in an hour, it will be tomorrow and you can all claim a Find, even my cache hider gets to claim a Find because he didn't really hide it, it has to be considered as replaced. I have checked it and sure enough it is under the sticks.

 

The logic of smilies is silly, hoops such as I have described are silly.

The logic of smilies is unwinnable because smilies really are meaningless.

You are right, the numbers really are meaningless.

A cacher can clearly log a cache that is missing in action and he can claim he found the cache.

The absolute rule is useless in geocaching, it's the logic of smilies or common sense.

 

Every cache I used as an example is one that is local and real and that I have found. Alberta is blessed with several moving caches, I have found three, one of them 77 times. Here is a photo of two moving caches brought together in one of my logs Stash n Dash and "Rib and Bit" (Leap Frog). Leap Frog is a lot of work for an out of towner like me, I am in the Hat, 2 1/2 hours from Calgary.

The Brass Cap Cache is another premiere Alberta-only cache, it is a very competitive cache hunt, I have found 77 of the 340 Unique Targets that are hosted under GC43F3 which is enough to be respectable in the Alberta geocaching community. I will continue to log them as I am able and I pass up caching to look for the Brass Caps, many Albertans do. Most of our Brass Caps (the ones that have been found) have been sweetened with nearby caches. It may not seem like much but after a few thousand vertical feet in the Rockies people are happy to have that extra smiley for the cache, but make no mistake, they are there to log another find on the Brass Cap. All Alberta monthly events use recycled cache pages. If you go to a monthly Event in Alberta it is a recycled cache page. Why we do it is very obvious, it is a conclusive rejection of silliness, cachers have to choose and if your silly you won't like it here. A smiley means nothing. Silly rules mean nothing.

If you live here you don't log Finds on Stash n Dash with Notes, that is just silly.

Logging multiple finds on caches designed to be logged multiple times is not wrong. That is what we do in Alberta, it is part of our geocaching culture.

Link to comment
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.
When you go to log that cache there are several options. The big two are "Found It" and "Didn't Find It". If you you didn't find the cache, yet you choose "Found It", how exactly should that be framed?
Perhaps with a little humor, compassion, or understanding. This is a game. When you throw out terms like 'liar' and 'cheater' you are making more out of it than it deserves and causing people who have come to respect you over the years to see you as a crank.
Link to comment

I simply cache. It doesn't require justification.

 

Perhaps you would comment on the example I used;

 

Ed gave a good example, a missing cache was replaced and everyone logged it as a Find, they did this because the cache owner said it was OK to do so.

 

This thread asks why and in the case above it is obvious; they were out geocaching, the cache was missing, they replaced it and logged the replacement cache as a "Find".

I think they did a good thing by replacing the cache, has my common sense deserted me?

 

I understand individual situations where the logbook was missing and will eventually be replaced or is replaced by a visiting cacher. Assuming the owner allows it. The owner does have that measure of control to allow or disallowing logging. But they do not have carte blanch to never require the cache be found to claim it. Gc.com will shutdown a missing cache being logged with the approval of the owner. It has happened.

 

There is a limit to the owner allowing finds on his cache.

Edited by BlueDeuce
Link to comment
I simply cache. It doesn't require justification.
Perhaps you would comment on the example I used;
Ed gave a good example, a missing cache was replaced and everyone logged it as a Find, they did this because the cache owner said it was OK to do so.
This thread asks why and in the case above it is obvious; they were out geocaching, the cache was missing, they replaced it and logged the replacement cache as a "Find".

I think they did a good thing by replacing the cache, has my common sense deserted me?

I understand individual situations where the logbook was missing and will eventually be replaced or is replaced by a visiting cacher. Assuming the owner allows it. The owner does have that measure of control to allow or disallowing logging. But they do not have carte blanch to never require the cache be found to claim it. Gc.com will shutdown a missing cache being logged with the approval of the owner. It has happened.

 

There is a limit to the owner allowing finds on his cache.

I agree that there are limits, but I don't think that we are bumping up against one, here. Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

I think they did a good thing by replacing the cache, has my common sense deserted me?

 

If you looked for one of my caches, and it was truly missing, and you replaced it, signed the logbook and logged a find, I'd be kind of annoyed but I'd let the find stand. But only as a matter of goodwill, you didn't find the cache.

 

If you assumed it was missing and placed a cache and later the real cache was found, I would require your found it logged be removed.

 

Considering that knowing a cache is truly missing when I never found it before is a iffy thing, I don't replace caches without prior owner permission. I don't need a found it that badly.

Edited by BlueDeuce
Link to comment

When you go to log that cache there are several options. The big two are "Found It" and "Didn't Find It". If you you didn't find the cache, yet you choose "Found It", how exactly should that be framed?

 

If a cache is designed to be found multiple times (eg. moving cache) and a cacher logs multiple finds on that cache do you think they are doing something wrong?

 

I thought this thread was aboutlogging fake finds on caches that are MIA.

Link to comment

However, if you don't find something, and then claim you did find it, you're being untruthful - no matter what the owner of the cache says. He's only allowing you to claim on his cache page that you found it without him challanging you. But he and you both know that if you log a Find on a cache that was MIA (which he had to replace after you'd left), that you didn't find it.

And, I don't see where anybody is arguing that point. So, we're all in agreement, then?

I think those folks that are saying "the owner says it was okay, so I actually did find it, and I'm not being untruthful" don't agree. "Those folks" would be those that claimed a Find on the cache that they never found.

Link to comment

However, if you don't find something, and then claim you did find it, you're being untruthful - no matter what the owner of the cache says. He's only allowing you to claim on his cache page that you found it without him challanging you. But he and you both know that if you log a Find on a cache that was MIA (which he had to replace after you'd left), that you didn't find it.

And, I don't see where anybody is arguing that point. So, we're all in agreement, then?

I think those folks that are saying "the owner says it was okay, so I actually did find it, and I'm not being untruthful" don't agree. "Those folks" would be those that claimed a Find on the cache that they never found.

I am one of "those folks" who think the name calling and mean-spirited posts are WAY out of proportion to the topic being discussed.

I am one of "those folks" who think that painting EVERY instance of what they deem "questionable finds" as a transgression worthy of degrading and demeaning fellow cachers.

I am one of "those folks" who wouldn't accept an offer to change a DNF to a find.

I am one of those folks who feels that, generally speaking, calling one's character into question over something like this is wrong.

Link to comment

However, if you don't find something, and then claim you did find it, you're being untruthful - no matter what the owner of the cache says.

 

A group of geocachers goes out geocaching and they go to a set of co-ordinates to look for a container. They find that the container is missing and then find that one of the group actually has the owners telephone number. They phone the owner and they find that he is at home. They describe what they have found and the owner tells them that the container is indeed missing and tells them to replace it. They replace the container, sign the log book and then carry on their way. They arrive home and they write this log : "Got to the coordinates and found that the cache was gone. Replaced the cache with the owners permission and signed the log. Thanks for the cache."

They claimed a Find on a cache they hid. Got it.

 

This is all correct,
It depends on what you consider "correct". To me, claiming a Find on a cache I hid is not "correct".

 

it conforms to common sense
Um... negative.

 

and it conforms to what they actually found when they got to the coordinates.
Big negative. When they got to the coordinate they Did Not Find a cache. Sounds like a DNF to me. The fact that they put one there before leaving doesn't change the fact that the cache they went looking for wasn't there.

 

Continued next post...

Link to comment
Calling anyone involved in that situation untruhful is not warranted.
Maybe not, but it's still accurate.

 

If they had waited until the cache owner showed up with a new cache then would they be telling the truth?
It depends on what they did after he showed up.

 

If the cache owner showed up and they all turned their backs while he hid the new cache then they would be telling the truth? :D:D:)
Yes, logging a Find after this happens is more accurate than logging a Find on a cache that isn't there.

 

Do you see a lack of common sense in the standard you want to adopt?

I do.

What standard do I want to adopt? The standard of logging Finds on caches that are there, and DNFs on caches you didn't find? I think that standard was in place long before either one of us started playing.

 

Honesty and virtue have nothing to do with this type of hair-splitting, the cachers were not being untruthful at any stage of their adventure.
It's hair-splitting to recommend logging what you actually did, instead of what you wanted to do?

 

I can see how certain smiley obssessed people might object, actually I can't. :)
I'd think "smiley obssessed" would apply more to the folks that are willing to claim finds on caches they didn't find. Someone that logs a DNF gets a frowny.

 

Perhaps you can paint a common sense approach where everyone is truthful but I doubt you can given your original premise.
Just follow the guidelines and fully understand the definitions of the word "Find" and the phrase "Did Not Find" and you'll be okay.
Link to comment
I am one of "those folks" who think the name calling and mean-spirited posts are WAY out of proportion to the topic being discussed.

I am one of "those folks" who think that painting EVERY instance of what they deem "questionable finds" as a transgression worthy of degrading and demeaning fellow cachers.

I am one of "those folks" who wouldn't accept an offer to change a DNF to a find.

I am one of those folks who feels that, generally speaking, calling one's character into question over something like this is wrong.

Wow. You just described me. Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

However, if you don't find something, and then claim you did find it, you're being untruthful - no matter what the owner of the cache says. He's only allowing you to claim on his cache page that you found it without him challanging you. But he and you both know that if you log a Find on a cache that was MIA (which he had to replace after you'd left), that you didn't find it.

And, I don't see where anybody is arguing that point. So, we're all in agreement, then?

I think those folks that are saying "the owner says it was okay, so I actually did find it, and I'm not being untruthful" don't agree. "Those folks" would be those that claimed a Find on the cache that they never found.

I am one of "those folks" who think the name calling and mean-spirited posts are WAY out of proportion to the topic being discussed.

I am one of "those folks" who think that painting EVERY instance of what they deem "questionable finds" as a transgression worthy of degrading and demeaning fellow cachers.

I am one of "those folks" who wouldn't accept an offer to change a DNF to a find.

I am one of those folks who feels that, generally speaking, calling one's character into question over something like this is wrong.

I hope you're not suggesting that I've been mean spirited, but since you've quoted me it sure seems like it.

 

This is a post about logging Finds on caches that are not there. Is it mean to say that doing so is not telling the truth?

Link to comment

However, if you don't find something, and then claim you did find it, you're being untruthful - no matter what the owner of the cache says. He's only allowing you to claim on his cache page that you found it without him challanging you. But he and you both know that if you log a Find on a cache that was MIA (which he had to replace after you'd left), that you didn't find it.

And, I don't see where anybody is arguing that point. So, we're all in agreement, then?

I think those folks that are saying "the owner says it was okay, so I actually did find it, and I'm not being untruthful" don't agree. "Those folks" would be those that claimed a Find on the cache that they never found.

I am one of "those folks" who think the name calling and mean-spirited posts are WAY out of proportion to the topic being discussed.

I am one of "those folks" who think that painting EVERY instance of what they deem "questionable finds" as a transgression worthy of degrading and demeaning fellow cachers.

I am one of "those folks" who wouldn't accept an offer to change a DNF to a find.

I am one of those folks who feels that, generally speaking, calling one's character into question over something like this is wrong.

I hope you're not suggesting that I've been mean spirited, but since you've quoted me it sure seems like it.

 

This is a post about logging Finds on caches that are not there. Is it mean to say that doing so is not telling the truth?

 

One can easily say "I don't believe in logging a cache that I didn't find. It wouldn't feel right to me. I would feel like I was lying or cheating." This would get the point across just fine. IMHO we cross the line when we take those basic thoughts express them with statements like, "These people didn't find the cache so they broke the rules and theyare cheaters and liars. They have little or no morals."

 

The first example expresses an opinion of the practice of logging a find on an MIA cache. The second example expresses an opinion about a fellow cacher. Based on my understanding of the forum guidelines, the first example is acceptable, the second one isn't.

 

I have no idea whether you have personally called anyone a cheater or a liar in this thread. My post was not directed at you, personally. It was directed at the tone of the thread and the negative direction it has taken.

 

Edit: Spelling

 

Edit: Canged "you " to "they"

Edited by Trinity's Crew
Link to comment
This is a post about logging Finds on caches that are not there. Is it mean to say that doing so is not telling the truth?
It depends.

 

If a cacher believes a cache is missing and claims a find thereby attempting to fool the cache owner into thinking that the cache seeker signed the log, the cache seeker is not telling the truth. He is, in fact, lying and cheating.

 

If, however, the cache owner offers the 'find' and the seeker accepts, he is not being untruthful since the cache owner is the arbiter of what constitutes a find.

Link to comment
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.
When you go to log that cache there are several options. The big two are "Found It" and "Didn't Find It". If you you didn't find the cache, yet you choose "Found It", how exactly should that be framed?
Perhaps with a little humor, compassion, or understanding. This is a game. When you throw out terms like 'liar' and 'cheater' you are making more out of it than it deserves and causing people who have come to respect you over the years to see you as a crank.

 

I don't think I threw out the words "liar" or "cheater" anywhere in this thread, though a reasonable argument can be made that those who log found its for cache they don't find are both.

 

I have stated my distaste for the practice. There have been numerous examples of why logging phony finds is not harmless "fun". It can and does affect others. I have as much right to proclaim my disdain for the practice as you do to support it.

 

Despite the cries of the anything goes gang, I'm not trying to force anything on anyone, but I do reserve the right to say I think it stinks like des palourdes mortes in the August sun.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

If, however, the cache owner offers the 'find' and the seeker accepts, he is not being untruthful since the cache owner is the arbiter of what constitutes a find.

No, they are merely sanctioning the lie. If I claim to have climbed Mt Everest when I did not, that is a lie. Just because the mountain owner tells me it’s OK to say I did doesn’t change the lie to a truth. If the cache is missing and you select Found It, you are telling a lie.

 

Wadcutter is right, it’s all about justification.

Link to comment

I though the point of caching was to seek an object with your GPSr, find that object, complete the site log requirements, and then log your activity?

 

I had a situation with one of my caches where a person logged a find stating that he found “where it should be.” When I went to check the cache it was still intact, so I sent him a note advising him that the cache was in fact there, and I deleted his found log. The next weekend this person logged his second find, boasting that he didn’t use his GPS. Something about the log told me I was in for disappointment. I went back to the cache again, and, it was gone.

 

It doesn’t have to be your fault you couldn’t find a cache. Finding where you think it should be, without finding the actual cache, doesn’t count as a find. :D

Edited by JATurtle
Link to comment

If, however, the cache owner offers the 'find' and the seeker accepts, he is not being untruthful since the cache owner is the arbiter of what constitutes a find.

No, they are merely sanctioning the lie. If I claim to have climbed Mt Everest when I did not, that is a lie. Just because the mountain owner tells me it’s OK to say I did doesn’t change the lie to a truth. If the cache is missing and you select Found It, you are telling a lie.

 

Wadcutter is right, it’s all about justification.

It's possible that the justification here is for the rudeness of some.

Link to comment

One can easily say "I don't believe in logging a cache that I didn't find. It wouldn't feel right to me. I would feel like I was lying or cheating." This would get the point across just fine. IMHO we cross the line when we take those basic thoughts express them with statements like, "These people didn't find the cache so they broke the rules and theyare cheaters and liars. They have little or no morals."

I'm with you on this one.

 

I would never log a find that wasn't there, but I won't attack others for doing it either. IMHO attacking a fellow cacher is worse that logging an MAI as find.

Link to comment
Calling anyone involved in that situation untruhful is not warranted.
Maybe not, but it's still accurate.

 

Perhaps you could point out the innaccuracies in the log they wrote?

 

I gather you see NO PROBLEMS at all in this scenario?

 

A party of five geocachers is seeking a cache and they phone me for help and tell me they have found a pile of sticks. I ask the caller to tell the others not to listen, this ensures that they will never need to DNF the cache. The one I am talking agrees to be the new replacement cache hider. While the rest are turned around the designated cache hider will put the replacement cache container back under the sticks. When the other four geocachers turn around the helper will tell them that I said to check under the sticks again, they must have missed it. They will check under the sticks and that is a Find. The designated helper cannot find it all as he is helping to hide it. I do tell my designated helper that he should log a DNF saying it is not there followed immediately by a Note saying it is there. All is going along fine until an unexpected noise causes everyone hiding their eyes to peek just as the cache is being replaced, Now no one can even log it because obviously they have not really found it, they peeked as it was being replaced. Since they have seen it being replaced they now know it is a replacement and they all need to log a DNF on the cache. Just then I arrive and tell them since it is 11:00PM now, go get a coffee come back in an hour, it will be tomorrow and you can all claim a Find, even my cache hider gets to claim a Find because he didn't really hide it, it has to be considered as replaced. I have checked it and sure enough it is under the sticks.

 

Do you think this is how geocaching works?

Edited by wavector
Link to comment
20 years to life for all the weekend golfers who take a mulligan or a gimme putt. It's a game for God's sake.

 

I agree. That's what makes the extra logging all the more silly. It's just a game for God's sake.

 

A party of five geocachers is seeking a cache and they phone me for help and tell me they have found a pile of sticks. I ask the caller to tell the others not to listen, this ensures that they will never need to DNF the cache. The one I am talking agrees to be the new replacement cache hider. While the rest are turned around the designated cache hider will put the replacement cache container back under the sticks. When the other four geocachers turn around the helper will tell them that I said to check under the sticks again, they must have missed it. They will check under the sticks and that is a Find. The designated helper cannot find it all as he is helping to hide it. I do tell my designated helper that he should log a DNF saying it is not there followed immediately by a Note saying it is there. All is going along fine until an unexpected noise causes everyone hiding their eyes to peek just as the cache is being replaced, Now no one can even log it because obviously they have not really found it, they peeked as it was being replaced. Since they have seen it being replaced they now know it is a replacement and they all need to log a DNF on the cache. Just then I arrive and tell them since it is 11:00PM now, go get a coffee come back in an hour, it will be tomorrow and you can all claim a Find, even my cache hider gets to claim a Find because he didn't really hide it, it has to be considered as replaced. I have checked it and sure enough it is under the sticks.

 

Do you think this is how geocaching works?

 

No, that's not how I envision it.

First off, in a perfect world they wouldn't be calling you at all about a CACHE. (to me calling cache owners about their caches is a bit weird and obsessive) They'd look, not find, go home and log a DNF. Then you, the cache owner, would replace YOUR cache. Some other day they would go back, find YOUR cache, and log a find.

 

That's how I envision it working.

 

On a different note- Thanks for explaining about the moving caches. I can see why you have your opinion on the GC#=Find thing, since you've found one 77 times. I had no idea it worked like that. Maybe that's one reason many of us don't get your logic, because we don't have caches that "should" be logged twice, much less 70+ times

Link to comment

I had no idea it worked like that. Maybe that's one reason many of us don't get your logic, because we don't have caches that "should" be logged twice, much less 70+ times

 

In Alberta it is the way geocaching works, we log multiple finds on caches designed to be found multiple times.

 

Here is a profile of one of our Charter Members who helps to maintain the Brass Cap website and as you can see he has been geocaching for a long time. He did not go back and change his finds to Notes after "evolving". :D

 

In Alberta it is the way geocaching works, we log multiple finds on caches designed to be found multiple times.

 

People who can't grasp this simple reality would never be happy geocaching here unless they really don't care about the smilies. If they want a new cache page each month when they attend the Monthly Event they would have to create their own, if they log another smiley for next months Event I know of no Albertan who would view it as wrong, our practices are established, they aren't going anywhere.

Our community members log multiple finds on caches designed to be found multiple times.

 

It is OK for an occasional crank to spout some simple metric and then call everyone in Alberta a liar - but GC moderators?

I simply cannot believe that common sense is thrown out the window for slipperiness when a simple question is posed, I am baffled.

 

No one in Alberta is suddenly going to decide that a few moderators at GC.com define geocaching but most Albertans who have been following this discussion have already lost an immense amount of respect for those who are supposed to be empowered to be impartial and would rather be slippery. The attempt to foist a simple metric over our culture and then question the integrity of our practices is rude.

 

I have no objection to people adopting some simplistic metric that makes them proud of their smilies and they are free to espouse that metric as sensible, I am free to attack it as silly.

 

Since I tried to answer your question perhaps you could answer one of mine. Every time I look at your user name my mind starts to shuffle back and forth over the words and I still come up empty. What does your user name mean?

Link to comment

The topic of this thread is "Claiming a find when cache is MIA" not "Multiple Finds on one Cache," which has already been closed by a moderator due to, "twisting words, selectively quoting, badgering, and trying to get others to change their opinions."

 

Moderator or not, and Canadian or not, Briansnat is entitled to his own opinions about how to play this game, just like everyone else.

 

Let's return this thread to its intended topic.

 

Bret

Link to comment

Doesn't bother me when they log a find for something not there, after all, they are only deluding themselves. I don't worry that much about the numbers that I have to lie to myself.

 

But the question remains.............."How can you find something that doesn't exist?"

 

 

Edited to do spellcheckers job.

Edited by Trucker Lee
Link to comment
Calling anyone involved in that situation untruhful is not warranted.
Maybe not, but it's still accurate.

Perhaps you could point out the innaccuracies in the log they wrote?

If they find the cache, they should log a Find.

If they didn't find the cache, they should log a Did Not Find.

 

Simple.

 

However you want to justify bending those to fit a situation where you can log a Find on something you didn't find is not going to change my game, or keep me from having fun. Go ahead, do it as many times as you want.

 

That also won't change the fact that if you logged a Find on an MIA, you didn't really find it and the log is bogus.

Link to comment
Just follow the guidelines and fully understand the definitions of the word "Find" and the phrase "Did Not Find" and you'll be okay.

I think you are using a narrow definition of "Find" to suite your needs. I have a cache that is 30' straight up a palm tree. If you were to walk to the base of the tree and look up, locating the cache, would that satisfy your definition of a "Find"? If I were to drive to Vinny & Sue's PUC # 13 (I think) cache and look across the gorge, locating it atop the old pylon, would that satisfy your definition of a "Find"? In both circumstances, the seeker failed to reach the cache and sign the logbook, but since the dictionary doesn't mention that under the word "Find", does that make it OK? Using a textbook definition of "Find" is not sufficient in this game, since the guidelines don't support that definition.

Link to comment

However, if you don't find something, and then claim you did find it, you're being untruthful - no matter what the owner of the cache says.

 

A group of geocachers goes out geocaching and they go to a set of co-ordinates to look for a container. They find that the container is missing and then find that one of the group actually has the owners telephone number. They phone the owner and they find that he is at home. They describe what they have found and the owner tells them that the container is indeed missing and tells them to replace it. They replace the container, sign the log book and then carry on their way. They arrive home and they write this log : "Got to the coordinates and found that the cache was gone. Replaced the cache with the owners permission and signed the log. Thanks for the cache."

 

This is all correct, it conforms to common sense and it conforms to what they actually found when they got to the coordinates. Calling anyone involved in that situation untruhful is not warranted.

If they had waited until the cache owner showed up with a new cache then would they be telling the truth?

If the cache owner showed up and they all turned their backs while he hid the new cache then they would be telling the truth? :huh:;);)

 

Do you see a lack of common sense in the standard you want to adopt?

I do.

Honesty and virtue have nothing to do with this type of hair-splitting, the cachers were not being untruthful at any stage of their adventure.

I can see how certain smiley obssessed people might object, actually I can't. :anicute:

 

Perhaps you can paint a common sense approach where everyone is truthful but I doubt you can given your original premise.

but they still didn't find it so they have no business claiming that they did. Even if the Queen of England told them it was ok to log a find, the truth is that they didn't find it.

Link to comment
Just follow the guidelines and fully understand the definitions of the word "Find" and the phrase "Did Not Find" and you'll be okay.

I think you are using a narrow definition of "Find" to suite your needs. I have a cache that is 30' straight up a palm tree. If you were to walk to the base of the tree and look up, locating the cache, would that satisfy your definition of a "Find"? If I were to drive to Vinny & Sue's PUC # 13 (I think) cache and look across the gorge, locating it atop the old pylon, would that satisfy your definition of a "Find"? In both circumstances, the seeker failed to reach the cache and sign the logbook, but since the dictionary doesn't mention that under the word "Find", does that make it OK? Using a textbook definition of "Find" is not sufficient in this game, since the guidelines don't support that definition.

The definition I'm using is one that applies if I went to try and find a cache, I did find it, I opened it and signed the log book, then I put it back.

 

The definition I'm saying doesn't fit as "Find" is whatever applies when someone goes to try and find a cache, doesn't find it, doesn't sign the log book, and leaves.

 

No matter what the owner agrees to (allowing the person to log the find, allowing them to replace it and log a find, whatever), it doesn't change the FACT that the person didn't really find the cache.

 

But if that's what you want to log, that's super. Go for it. Log all your DNFs as Finds. Just because I don't agree that they're actually finds doesn't mean that I care if you do it.

Link to comment
but they still didn't find it so they have no business claiming that they did. Even if the Queen of England told them it was ok to log a find, the truth is that they didn't find it.
Since the Queen of England doesn't own any caches, I agree with you. However, if the owner says it's fine, I don't care.
Link to comment

  • If someone doesn't sign the logbook, they should not post a 'find'. The owner has no authority in this matter.
  • According to the guidelines, the owner is responsible for determining what a find is. If the owner agrees that a find has been made, a 'find' log will be allowed.

That's really the two camps to this issue.

Link to comment
  • If someone doesn't sign the logbook, they should not post a 'find'. The owner has no authority in this matter.
  • According to the guidelines, the owner is responsible for determining what a find is. If the owner agrees that a find has been made, a 'find' log will be allowed.

That's really the two camps to this issue.

 

A sanctioned find? or one that gc.com isn't going to bother themselves over?

Edited by BlueDeuce
Link to comment

I STILL say that the reason a cacher punches the smilie icon instead of a DNF is to make up for the

loss of the potential SWAG!! :anicute:

 

If you give that briar-hopping, bar-ditch jumping, yellow jacket evading cacher something TANGIBLE

like a fuzzy McToy......then things are going to run as smooth as an Etrex on Alkaline Energizers! ;)

 

It's when somebody moved that cheese, that the problems start! He has to save face! He can't walk away

as a BOOB! And that's why he punches that smilie face into his puter cords! ;)

 

Soooooooo Let's show a little................COMPASSION! :huh:

Link to comment

[*]According to the guidelines, the owner is responsible for determining what a find is. If the owner agrees that a find has been made, a 'find' log will be allowed.

Where does it say this in the guidelines? I looked but probably not in the right place. (As I've said before, I'm horrible at finding things.)

Edited by QSparrow
Link to comment
  • If someone doesn't sign the logbook, they should not post a 'find'. The owner has no authority in this matter.
  • According to the guidelines, the owner is responsible for determining what a find is. If the owner agrees that a find has been made, a 'find' log will be allowed.

That's really the two camps to this issue.

No, I'm in both camps, with the exception of the words marked out above.

 

They shouldn't log a find if they didn't find it. But some do, because the ower says it's okay or whatever, and it's allowed.

Link to comment

Log whatever you want ... I don't care. I'm out finding caches.

 

Chris

 

I think that pretty much covers the debate.

 

You didn't find my cache, I deleted your find. Do you care?

 

(I know, it's really about if the cache owner says it's okay, then it's okay. If they say no then it's no.)

Link to comment
  • If someone doesn't sign the logbook, they should not post a 'find'. The owner has no authority in this matter.
  • According to the guidelines, the owner is responsible for determining what a find is. If the owner agrees that a find has been made, a 'find' log will be allowed.

That's really the two camps to this issue.

 

A sanctioned find? or one that gc.com isn't going to bother themselves over?

Yup.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...