Jump to content

Claiming a find when cache is MIA


SueEmAll
Followers 5

Recommended Posts

  • 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.

 

gc.com doesn't bother and therefore...

 

Bad idea.

Link to comment
...

 

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?

 

Not to derail a topic, just to answer a question ...

 

To my knowledge there are 3 geocaching.com-approved ( but no longer allowed ) moving caches in Alberta :

 

Brass Cap Cache

 

Leap Frog

 

Stash n' Dash

 

I have also found Find Ben while bumping into the owner while on my move down to the Phoenix area.

 

Moving caches were no longer being approved before my time ( I think ... Aug, 2004 ) but for me the fun of them is that you get a new hide each time and it's like finding an old friend. The first three caches above were hidden by outforthehunt, a real pioneer of geocaching in Alberta, and these three caches are favorites of Calgarians.

 

Moving caches aren't unique to Alberta, I'm sure that there are plenty still around. It's too bad that they're no longer allowed, they're a fun cache type.

Edited by nicolo
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.
gc.com doesn't bother and therefore...

 

Bad idea.

Clearly, I get too lazy with my answers, sometimes. I suppose a better answer would have been 'Both.'
Link to comment

The key words in that log are, "with permission of the owner"

 

Setting aside the fact that you can simply not find something that is not there, lets quote more in context;

 

"..so with permission of the owner I would like to log this as a find. Have not heard from the owner so I will log this one.."

Link to comment

The key words in that log are, "with permission of the owner"

 

Setting aside the fact that you can simply not find something that is not there, lets quote more in context;

 

"..so with permission of the owner I would like to log this as a find. Have not heard from the owner so I will log this one.."

And even more context:

"I had the same results as the previous person, I know I had good cords but it looks as though there was a party in the very place where I got GZ. I know I will never return to this spot from the USA, so with permission of the owner I would like to log this as a find. Have not heard from the owner so I will log this one as a vertual cache with pictures of the area that I took.

 

[This entry was edited by [the finder] on Monday, April 09, 2007 at 8:08:58 PM.]"

 

The find was April 4, then edited on the 9th, I would assume to add the "Have not heard..." part.

 

I'm still not saying it should be done, but let's look at the whole picture.

Link to comment

The key words in that log are, "with permission of the owner"

 

Setting aside the fact that you can simply not find something that is not there, lets quote more in context;

 

"..so with permission of the owner I would like to log this as a find. Have not heard from the owner so I will log this one.."

And even more context:

"I had the same results as the previous person, I know I had good cords but it looks as though there was a party in the very place where I got GZ. I know I will never return to this spot from the USA, so with permission of the owner I would like to log this as a find. Have not heard from the owner so I will log this one as a vertual cache with pictures of the area that I took.

 

[This entry was edited by [the finder] on Monday, April 09, 2007 at 8:08:58 PM.]"

 

The find was April 4, then edited on the 9th, I would assume to add the "Have not heard..." part.

 

I'm still not saying it should be done, but let's look at the whole picture.

Good golly and by gosh! The previous few posts have inspired me, by Jove! I am hereby claiming a find on each and every cache in the 37 US mainland states in which I have never yet found a cache, on the ground that I have never visited those states and I will never return to those spots either (because I was never there in the first place) and therefore I would like to log all of these caches as finds. And, I have not yet heard from the 435,013 owners of these caches, and so I will go ahead and log those 839,592 caches as vertual (sic) caches with aerial pickures (sic) from Google Earth. How fun! As soon as I finish getting these vertual (sic) finds logged, I will have over 840,000 finds, making our account the highest-find-count account in the world! How fun! :D

 

Thank you all (all the cache owners, that is) for the finds!

 

 

 

 

:wub::wub::wub:

Link to comment

And even more context:

"I had the same results as the previous person, I know I had good cords but it looks as though there was a party in the very place where I got GZ. I know I will never return to this spot from the USA, so with permission of the owner I would like to log this as a find. Have not heard from the owner so I will log this one as a vertual cache with pictures of the area that I took.

 

[This entry was edited by [the finder] on Monday, April 09, 2007 at 8:08:58 PM.]"

 

The find was April 4, then edited on the 9th, I would assume to add the "Have not heard..." part.

 

I'm still not saying it should be done, but let's look at the whole picture.

 

:D How does the rest of the message add any context?

 

Cashier: That wil be $342.50

 

Customer: My wallet appears to be missing. Since it was suppose to be here, see the pocket, just give me a reciept saying I paid and I'll be on my way.

 

"I had the same results as the previous person, I know I had good cords my wallet when I left the house but it looks as though there was a party an eyeglass case in the very place where I got GZ it should be. I know I will never return to this spot store from the USA, so with permission of a receipt from the owner I would like to log this as a find take my merchandise. Have not heard from the owner so I will log this one as a vertual cache take my ipod home and send with pictures of the area that I took where I usually keep my wallet."

 

Let's just replace "Found it" logs with "Hunted it" logs. We can then get rid of the DNF log and call it a day.

Link to comment

Personal integrity aside, do you think there’s a correlation between ‘loose’ finding standards and a preference for ‘easy’ caches? IOW, is a person more likely to lie about finding the cache if the type of cache they hunt is seldom above two stars terrain difficulty?

 

V&S Team hides some pretty tough caches, and I doubt they’d allow a find on any of them unless the finder actually found the cache, I’m the same way. However, when it comes to parking lot and guardrail types, the cache owners seem more willing to let it slide. In doing so, does the cache owner inadvertently devalue their cache? The rational being, “My cache is nothing special, so you don’t put a whole lot of effort into it.”

Link to comment

And even more context:

"I had the same results as the previous person, I know I had good cords but it looks as though there was a party in the very place where I got GZ. I know I will never return to this spot from the USA, so with permission of the owner I would like to log this as a find. Have not heard from the owner so I will log this one as a vertual cache with pictures of the area that I took.

 

[This entry was edited by [the finder] on Monday, April 09, 2007 at 8:08:58 PM.]"

 

The find was April 4, then edited on the 9th, I would assume to add the "Have not heard..." part.

 

I'm still not saying it should be done, but let's look at the whole picture.

 

:D How does the rest of the message add any context?

The hider spells out exactly why he felt he should be able to log a find. It may not be reason enough for most people -- I wouldn't do it -- but he gave his reason.

 

Cashier: That wil be $342.50

 

Customer: My wallet appears to be missing. Since it was suppose to be here, see the pocket, just give me a reciept saying I paid and I'll be on my way.

 

"I had the same results as the previous person, I know I had good cords my wallet when I left the house but it looks as though there was a party an eyeglass case in the very place where I got GZ it should be. I know I will never return to this spot store from the USA, so with permission of a receipt from the owner I would like to log this as a find take my merchandise. Have not heard from the owner so I will log this one as a vertual cache take my ipod home and send with pictures of the area that I took where I usually keep my wallet."

 

A digital smiley vs stealing a $342 iPod?

 

Let's just replace "Found it" logs with "Hunted it" logs. We can then get rid of the DNF log and call it a day.

Hmm. "Found it" logs have value to the hider and future seekers, though (which is why I log accurately myself). But, what if the DNF icon wasn't a frownie face? I really wonder if people would be less reluctant to log them if they didn't have that negative connotation. Keep "Found it" but replace DNF with "Hunted it". It's the difference between "I tried" and "I failed".

Edited by Dinoprophet
Link to comment

My cache in the tree that burned last summer is a walk of about half a mile, after a long drive to the trailhead. The cachers were there, they found the wire, and after I knew for sure the tree burned (it was right at the edge of the fire), I got down there to replace the container.

 

Recently someone logged a "Found It" on a container they said they couldn't get open to sign the log . . . I didn't ask them to change their "Found It" to a "Note." That cache is a long drive for most people in this area.

 

And, I don't want to be the cause of any angst in our local caching community. :wub:

 

However, for some of my other caches, that involve a long hike, if someone logged a "Found It" when they didn't find the container, I think I would email them and ask them to change their log. That hasn't happened, yet . . .

 

I have emailed new cachers when I have seen duplicate "Found It" logs on a cache when they have returned to pick up a TB, or when their "Found It" logs are bogus, like someone saying they signed the log . . . on a Virtual out in the ocean. :D

Link to comment

A digital smiley vs stealing a $342 iPod?

 

I was pointing out the prinicple, not the value. Ultimately the same principle applies.

 

However, taking your point to heart, since it is only a digital smiley why would you log it if you did not find it? What is the point? It makes it worthless to you anyway. It is not even a true representation of your experiences if you are using your logs as a "diary".

 

When all is said and done, I couldn't really care less if this is done. I wouldn't and do not allow it on my caches. It becomes an issue for discussion, at least for me, when it is then defended and rationalized. There simply is none. There are only three real choices/scenarios. You found the cache, you did not find the cache or you re-found the cache for whatever reason(note).

 

The burnt cache is a good example. You found the area, you found the burnt wire but the cache was not there to be found. The container not opening (Note: PUHLEES!) is a different story/issue. At least they found the cache...well, maybe...hopefully it was not just a discarded item in the caches vicinity. No way to tell now.

 

While 99.978465% of the time I agree with Criminal, I don't believe it is simply the 1/1 or LPC/Guardrail caches. Many of the ones I have seen are either logged without the owners permission to do so, they are not from the area so are allowed or "because they went to all the trouble".

Link to comment

 

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

 

And if it were in Antarctica:

You did not find it

That makes you an impostor.

 

My honest points look not as valuable as they are as someone else can not easily see that your many points are cheating while mine (fewer) are honest.

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

(Edited to correct typo.)

 

You are still a cheater defacing the value of honest cachers.

Link to comment

It occurs to me that in almost every one of these cases, the person logging has in fact told the truth about their experience in their log. That's the only reason anyone knows they didn't actually find the container. Someone who was truly a liar and a cheater wouldn't put it in their log.

My honest points look not as valuable as they are as someone else can not easily see that your many points are cheating while mine (fewer) are honest.

They aren't points, and they have no value. Even the most adamant against "found it" logs on MIA caches will tell you they don't care how many finds you or I or anyone else has.

Link to comment

But, what if the DNF icon wasn't a frownie face? I really wonder if people would be less reluctant to log them if they didn't have that negative connotation. Keep "Found it" but replace DNF with "Hunted it". It's the difference between "I tried" and "I failed".

Yes, indeed. Let's not allow anything to happen that might make someone feel bad. GC.com might have to provide counselors to help us get through these tragic failures in our lives.

 

While we're at it, let's not keep score on any sports games in schools so that nobody is a "loser". Every game will end in a tie, and everyone will get a trophy at the end of the season. (this really happens in a Memphis school a co-worker's kids attend)

 

When my boss realizes how much time I spend on the forums during the day and wants to fire me, I can tell him that it would make me seem like a failure and I should be allowed to keep my job anyway. Perhaps even get a raise.

 

Hmmm.... okay, I'm going back to work now just in case he doesn't care how I feel about it.

Link to comment

They aren't points, and they have no value. Even the most adamant against "found it" logs on MIA caches will tell you they don't care how many finds you or I or anyone else has.

 

Correct. The issue does occasionally affect some of us. I have caches in my GPS in such a way that it shows the last 4 "find" statuses. In the example given a few messages up, it would look like "NNFN" to me. Ocassionally I find myself between meetings someplace and just take a quick look for what is near-by.

 

"NNNN" or even "FNNN" would indicate to me that with limited time I should look elsewhere since this is most likely missing. "NNFN" indicates it is probably there just had many new cachers or just a type that some cachers have difficulty with. Foolproof? no. Do I get burned even when all logs are legit? yep. However the false find skews things. Multiple false finds make it even worse. The fact that it is in the log means nothing to my wife and I or the people we cache with. We try not to look at past logs or hints, only as a last resort. It's just part of the challenge for us. We do however look to see if it was found recently.

 

I wouldn't call these people liars, however at the very least, inconsiderate applies.

Link to comment

But, what if the DNF icon wasn't a frownie face? I really wonder if people would be less reluctant to log them if they didn't have that negative connotation. Keep "Found it" but replace DNF with "Hunted it". It's the difference between "I tried" and "I failed".

Yes, indeed. Let's not allow anything to happen that might make someone feel bad. GC.com might have to provide counselors to help us get through these tragic failures in our lives.

 

While we're at it, let's not keep score on any sports games in schools so that nobody is a "loser". Every game will end in a tie, and everyone will get a trophy at the end of the season. (this really happens in a Memphis school a co-worker's kids attend)

 

When my boss realizes how much time I spend on the forums during the day and wants to fire me, I can tell him that it would make me seem like a failure and I should be allowed to keep my job anyway. Perhaps even get a raise.

 

Hmmm.... okay, I'm going back to work now just in case he doesn't care how I feel about it.

It's not the non-finders the idea would appease; it's the people who are worried about how other people log. Remove the negative connotation, and people will log more honestly, and everyone can relax.

I wouldn't call these people liars, however at the very least, inconsiderate applies.

I'll agree with that. The only reason I jumped into this thread is I take exception to some of the venom being spat around. You'd think people were stealing caches wholesale from some of the posts (quotes above are not intended to point to anyone).

Edited by Dinoprophet
Link to comment

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

here here! :D

Link to comment

I have one cache out there now. A recent log entry was a DNF stating that the cacher had seen where others had been looking. Should she/he claim a Found It just because they went to the trouble to arrive at some location? I do not think so.

 

Recently we went looking for a local micro. We could not find it and logged a DNF. There were a couple previous DNF logs, and I think one after. I was starting to think that it was MIA. But Lo! Behold! Someone found it, and then another. Just 'cuz you think it is not there does not mean it is not.

 

If you find it, say so. If you can't find it, log a DNF. Simple. Has nothing to do with honesty or stealing or anything, just stating what happened when you went for it.

 

Perhaps some people do get wrapped up in find counts. Maybe the solution is to not display them to anyone but the member. That way no one has any idea how many anyone else has. At least that would eliminate some onf this.

 

My 0.02 FWTW

 

VKsnr

Link to comment

<snip>

The burnt cache is a good example. You found the area, you found the burnt wire but the cache was not there to be found. The container not opening (Note: PUHLEES!) is a different story/issue. At least they found the cache...well, maybe...hopefully it was not just a discarded item in the caches vicinity. No way to tell now.

<snip>

Well . . . isn't that interesting. Someone logged a find on that cache today and did not mention it was hard to open . . .

 

I just might have to send an email to that other cacher . . . :huh:

Link to comment

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.

....

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

but multiple founds on simple caches like 17 times logging a find like lynn (17000 ++ "finds" ) are simply cheating.

 

My smililies are better than the smilies of any cheater, as they are honest

Link to comment

 

My honest points look not as valuable as they are as someone else can not easily see that your many points are cheating while mine (fewer) are honest.

 

 

 

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

 

(Edited to correct typo.)

 

You are still a cheater defacing the value of honest cachers.

"Defacing the value of honest cachers??? What value is that, pray tell??? Your "honest points"? Bully for you!

 

Sheesh. This has been going on for weeks now, and some of you still don't get that it is just a game. A family pasttime. A hobby. Not a thing more.

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.

 

will it be bribing if a briber offers a bribe and a briber accepts?

 

I think yes

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.

Are you a liar yourself and don't like the feeling of being one?

Link to comment

How can you cheat in a game that has no rules? This has to be the silliest thread in the history of the internet. If Vinny wants to claim finds for every cache ever placed, and then a few more, then have at it. It doesn't affect me, and I don't give a rap. It's not stealing, it's not cheating, and it doesn't hurt anyone. If you decide on whether to hunt a cache based on posted finds, then you deserve what you get. People are human beings, and some will cheat and lie, just like their elected leaders do. That makes no difference in whether, where, or when I hunt a cache. I will never catch up to 99% of the cachers in numbers, because I'm not trying to, and there is no money in caching in any case. Get a life.

Link to comment

 

"Defacing the value of honest cachers??? What value is that, pray tell??? Your "honest points"? Bully for you!

 

Sheesh. This has been going on for weeks now, and some of you still don't get that it is just a game. A family pasttime. A hobby. Not a thing more.

But I like to play it with other families having a pastime.

I don't like cheaters trying to pose as better players.

Geocaching with decent people, not with imposters.

Link to comment

How can you cheat in a game that has no rules? This has to be the silliest thread in the history of the internet. If Vinny wants to claim finds for every cache ever placed, and then a few more, then have at it. It doesn't affect me, and I don't give a rap. It's not stealing, it's not cheating, and it doesn't hurt anyone. If you decide on whether to hunt a cache based on posted finds, then you deserve what you get. People are human beings, and some will cheat and lie, just like their elected leaders do. That makes no difference in whether, where, or when I hunt a cache. I will never catch up to 99% of the cachers in numbers, because I'm not trying to, and there is no money in caching in any case. Get a life.

Very well said. It's time for a reality check from people here. Is it really, really worth labeling and slandering people over a few smilies???

 

I thought I had found the one hobby where people could just be people, without name calling and ill feeling. I guess that was just a pipe dream, based on the hatred being spewed forth from some poster's mouths.

 

Get over yourselves. Really. Once and for all, please?

Link to comment

But I like to play it with other families having a pastime.

I don't like cheaters trying to pose as better players.

Geocaching with decent people, not with imposters.

Do you think having a higher find count makes you a better player? Is that why you are concerned about someone claiming a find on an MIA cache? I hope not, because others have convinced me that most puritans are concerned only that online found it log be used only when you've found the cache. They mostly can't understand the motivation of people use it other ways unless those people think that a higher number is better.

 

Non-puritans may be using a find count to mean that between themselves and the cache owner whatever it was they did deserves a smiley. They are not trying to inflate their numbers; the found it log indicate that between them and the cache owner they have completed the intent of the cache.

 

I tend to agree with the puritans and think it is silly to use the find count to record that you found the place where the cache was supposed to be and confirmed it with the owner. But I accept this is the way some people are playing the game. They don't see it as cheating. I personally don't let it bother me. I can only know what my find counts means. I can use other people's find counts as approximation of their level of experience but I can't tell if they have a stricter interpretation of a find than me or a more liberal one or even if they are out and out cheaters that just post online logs without even leaving their house. It's fine to express your opinion that you should only use the found it log when you've found the cache. But I wonder if the assumption that some who "lies" about finding a cache means that they would lie about something else is correct - especially when they state right in their log what they are doing.

Link to comment

I love the treasure hunting, sight-seeing, and "sneaking around" aspects of Geocaching, but the main draw for me was that, along with all of those things, it is a friendly competition. The only way the competition can be genuine is if all finds are logged in the same way.

 

So, yes I was a bit disillusioned when I realized that not all finds are finds in the way I see them. (You know, find a cache and physically put your name on a logbook, tell us about it on GC.COM...pretty simple.) I just have to realize that the competition aspect is not exactly what I want it to be, but it's all still pretty darn fun!

 

On a side note, my younger brother and I had our own little competition and it was marred by a phantom log incident! It was fun busting his chops over it even though everyone knows it's okay to cheat so you can show up your big brother!

Link to comment

How about this description added by the owner to the long description of a cache page: Last time I was in [the cache location's town], I couldn't find this cache, but other people have since, so I can't give any more hints. I do not know when the listing was modified, but wonder why the "found it" logs remain, even though the owner DNF'ed it. (GCN680)

Link to comment

you can simply not find something that is not there

You're arguing under the startlingly simpleton idea that a "find" as defined by the average geocacher must match precisely the definition of "Find" in a dictionary. Obviously this is not the case. If you located the "Blue Bellybutton" cache, but failed to rub blue mud in your navel as required by the ALR, would that be a "Find" for you? Conventional wisdom says "No". If you stood on the side of a gorge and visually located a cache perched upon a pylon, need you go any further? You "found" it, right? Why bother breaking out the rappelling gear just for the formality of signing a pesky logbook? By your definition, it's a "Find".

 

These two examples point out why we can't fall back on the textbook definition of "Find" to describe that segment of our game. That leaves the job up to Groundspeak, since this is their website. Yet, Groundspeak has remained ominously silent on this issue, which leaves it up to each cache owner to determine what qualifies as a "Find" on their particular cache.

 

I wouldn't ask them to change their log to a Note or DNF . . . but that's just me.

A refreshingly brisk wisp of tolerance. :laughing:

 

Personal integrity aside, do you think there’s a correlation between ‘loose’ finding standards and a preference for ‘easy’ caches?

Honestly, I don't know. There have only been a few times in my history where owners offered me a find on one of their caches which I had DNF'ed. I didn't take them up on their offer, and I can't remember who it was that made the offer. If I could remember who it was that offered, I could give an opinion. For now, the best I can say is, "Maybe?"

 

A digital smiley vs stealing a $342 iPod?

Some folks ain't happy unless they are blowing things out of proportion. :laughing:

 

You are still a cheater defacing the value of honest cachers.

Be at least honest enough to admit that you cheat.

I don't like cheaters trying to pose as better players.

Doesn't all this self righteous blathering tarnish your halo?

Care to show me where I cheated? Since you like to hurl insults around, at least have the nerve to back them up.

Can somebody please get this person a pulpit? Bible thumping belongs in church, not in geocaching.

Edited by Clan Riffster
Link to comment

wow.... i am new to this stuff, i would just like to say that i will probably never say that i have found one.

i don't get what the big deal is about the number of finds someone has?

do you people really think anybody gives a rats butt how many you have found?

it just like archery, nobody cares what your score is but you!

 

i thought this was something fun,,, guess i was wrong huh?

Link to comment

it just like archery, nobody cares what your score is but you!

No, it's definitely supposed to be fun. It is fun for everyone that sticks with it (obviously they wouldn't keep playing if it weren't fun).

 

Some people play different than others, and that's okay. Just like archery, or putt-putt, it's just a game and you are free to change how strict you want to stick to the "rules" (or guidelines, or suggestions, whatever).

 

In archery, one person might shoot his arrows, see where they landed, take the score, and that's what he got. Another person might have a bad shot and call a "do over", get the arrow back, and make another shot that gives him a higher score. Both people have had fun.

 

In Putt-putt, one person might take 8 putts to get the ball in, write down an 8, and go to the next hole. Another person might also take 8 putts to get the ball in, but decide that a few of them didn't really count because the ball went out of bounds, or rolled back down the hill, or whatever, so he writes down a 5. Little kids have been known to not putt at all, but walk town the green pushing the ball with their putter until it goes in, and they shout, "I got a hole in 1"! All three people are playing different, and all having fun.

 

In geocaching, two people might go to a cache location, see that the cache is gone because of evidence of where it must have been, and go to the next one. The owner might offer to both people that logging a Find is okay with him since the went to the location, and even though the cache is now back in place they don't need to return in order to claim a find. One person might say no thanks, it's a DNF until I find it. The other might say thanks and log a find, even though they never actually found the cache. Both logs are acceptable to the web site, and both people are having fun.

 

BTW, it's also a LOT of fun (for some people) to come into the forums and discuss/debate/argue the differences in how we cache. :)

Link to comment

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

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