Why do you log finds on caches that are MIA?

[+pghlooking]

There are quite a few threads on the topic of people logging caches that are MIA or in some cases just didn't find. The owner let's them log a find even though it was never found. There are people that log caches as a sort of memorial to remember the cache as it is archieved. There are all sorts of reasons people do this. I am not asking whether it is right or wrong, whether you agree or disagree.

 

I am just asking...

 

1. What your reasons are/were for claiming a find on a cache that you did not physically sign your name into the logbook.

 

2. Is this something you normally practice?

 

3. Do you allow others to log your caches that were not signed but were rather "earned"?

[crtrue]

In my case, I logged a find at a destroyed cache. It was eaten by a thresher and I spent an hour gathering up the shredded log and a TB named Jelly, which I sent the remains to the owner in Maine. I figured for the work that I deserved some reward, but if the owner saw otherwise and removed the find, I wouldn't complain.

[+Right Wing Wacko]

If I don't find it... I don't log a find, I log a DNF. Thats what DNF means.... Did Not Find.

 

If I log a find on a cache I didn't find I would be lying

Edited March 13, 2007 by Right Wing Wacko

[+Always & Forever 5]

Edited because I didn't want to get into it again today.

Edited March 13, 2007 by Always & Forever 5

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Is there any legitimate reason for this thread, or is it just pot stirring?

[+Totem Clan]

I never have.

[+BlueDeuce]

Edited because I didn't want to get into it again today.

 

It's okay A&F5, you can come over and not find my caches anytime you like.

 

[+halffast]

I found a cache last spring.The container was full of ice.I could not sign the logbook but left my card as proof I had found it.I emailed the owner stating a maintainance run was needed.That was the only one that I claimed a find that I didnt sign the logbook.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

I found a cache last spring.The container was full of ice.I could not sign the logbook but left my card as proof I had found it.I emailed the owner stating a maintainance run was needed.That was the only one that I claimed a find that I didnt sign the logbook.

To me, what you cite is a perfectly natural occurrence, and you left your signature/calling card in the container nonetheless, and so, to me, this counts as a valid find. I often encounter this situation when finding extreme terrain geocaches, due to situatinos ranging from wet and rotted logbooks to overfull logbooks, and I simply leave a piece of pape with my name/date on it, and note the same on my online log entry. Of course, where possible, I also replace the logook or logsheet, but sometimes, particularly for some extreme terrain caches, this is simply not possible.

[Clan Riffster]

1. What your reasons are/were for claiming a find on a cache that you did not physically sign your name into the logbook.

I've never claimed a find without locating the container. I've had numerous offers to change my DNF's to finds from owners who verified their cache was missing, but I've yet to avail myself of their offers. I have located caches which were smashed, trashed, thrashed & burned, and I had no qualms about logging finds on them.

2. Is this something you normally practice?

Redundancy is repetitive. See above.

3. Do you allow others to log your caches that were not signed but were rather "earned"?

Yep!

Edited March 13, 2007 by Clan Riffster

[+Renegade Knight]

I've done both.

 

Early on I found the exact spot the cache was supposed to be in. The cache owner said "thanks, dang it's been stolen" and let me log. I did.

 

Later same thing but I posted a DNF and moved on. These forums have influenced me.

 

What I don't do is log a smilie on a MIA cache if the owner hasn't confirmed it's MIA. Because without that confirmation for all I know I merely didn't find it.

 

If someone sends me enough of a detailed description to where I know beyond the shadow of a doubt they found the nothing that is the empty spot of honor where my cache was...I'll let them log the find. However only that person or group. Once I disable it to fix it the cache is not available to find anymore.

Edited March 13, 2007 by Renegade Knight

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

I've done both.

 

Early on I found the exact spot the cache was supposed to be in. The cache owner said "thanks, dang it's been stolen" and let me log. I did.

 

Later same thing but I posted a DNF and moved on. These forums have influenced me.

 

What I don't do is log a smilie on a MIA cache if the owner hasn't confirmed it's MIA. Because without that confirmation for all I know I merely didn't find it.

 

If someone sends me enough of a detailed description to where I know beyond the shadow of a doubt they found the nothing that is the empty spot of honor where my cache was...I'll let them log the find. However only that person or group. Once I disable it to fix it the cache is not available to find anymore.

EGADS! If we argue this long enough we may find that we all agree!

 

What happens then, does the forum server explode?

[+Mr. 0]

I think the only smiley I've claimed on an archived cache was the Yellow Jeep locationless...but that's a horse of a different color.

 

I DNFed a cache placed by a good friend of mine because the area had been bulldozed and taken the cache with it. He offered to let me log it anyhow, but I declined, since I didn't sign the log.

 

On a couple of occasions I've offered to allow other cachers to log caches that I own when they were missing. These folks, through their online logs, emails, and photos had sufficiently proved to me that they were in the correct spot, but that the cache was missing. Both cachers declined to log the caches. To me caching is all about the area, not the cache itself. You'll see that on some of my caches I give specific instructions on how to easily find the cache. I'm not trying to made it a hard find, but rather bring people to an area, and at the same time hide it well enough to keep muggles from finding it. I want cachers to find it easily. So given that, like I said, the cachers proved they got to the area as intended, but there was nothing for them to sign. They fulfilled my wants as a cache owner, so I gave them the opportunity to get the smiley anyhow.

[+ZSandmann]

Yes... Once.

 

I was hunting a multi while out of town on business. Three stages with a very cool theme. I found stage one and two but couldn't find three. While I was at GZ some lawncare guys across the road were cleaning up limbs and trash and packing it in their truck. I searched again two days later and found GZ again, and noticed fresh clippings. The owner then visited and confirmed the cache was gone. He allowed me to log the find because I don't know when I'll be back and I was litterally beat to the find by maybe 10 minutes by the muggle groundscrew. I liked the cache and wanted a record of it in my finds log. If I do make it back to the area and the cache is replaced it will be the first one I visit to sign the log.

[+DocDiTTo]

I am just asking...

 

1. What your reasons are/were for claiming a find on a cache that you did not physically sign your name into the logbook.

 

"No log signed, no cache find" is my rule (except in the case of virtual and earthcaches, of course).

 

2. Is this something you normally practice?

 

I regularly practice not logging caches whose log books I haven't signed, if that's what you're asking.

 

3. Do you allow others to log your caches that were not signed but were rather "earned"?

 

No. If someone attempts to do so, I'll kindly request they log their adventures with a DNF or a note. That said, I've never had to delete a find because of someone trying to grab a quick number. I don't make a regular practice of watching my logs like a hawk looking for violations either. I assume most people are honest and have enough integrity to play this game as it's meant to be played.

[Trinity's Crew]

Why log a MIA cache? To paraphrase mountain climber George Mallory, "Because it's not there."

 

Sorry. I couldn't resist.

[+Miragee]

I have never logged a find on a missing cache, or a cache I couldn't find, even when I was "given permission" by the cache owner.

 

I have let people's finds stand on caches of mine that were missing at the time 'cause . . .

 

I have also let people's finds stand when they have said they "didn't have a pencil to sign the log" 'cause . . .

 

I just don't want to delete someone's online find log if they got to the location and thought they deserved the smilie enough to log a Found It instead of a DNF . . . or couldn't walk 230 feet back to their vehicle to get a pen for the "log-only" micro . . .

 

I just haven't been that "brave."

[+pghlooking]

Is there any legitimate reason for this thread, or is it just pot stirring?

Everyone else seems to be able to stay on topic, except you. I am curious as to why people log caches when they never found it. I don't understand it and am trying to understand it. I have seen a couple reasons, like it was full of ice so I left my calling card, that I can agree with.

 

You should have some insight into this that would be on topic. You have claimed finds on hundreds of caches without so much as opeing the car door, or the cache box. Care to stay on topic and state your reasons?

 

If not I understand but would ask you to take the debate to the thread for that and not try to derail this opne for no other reason than to get it locked. Thank you.

[+Airmapper]

I think there are 2 caches that I logged a find on that were not there. I was still a newbie, and thought that was just what you were supposed to do. I have considered deleting the finds, but it has been so long ago it doesn't really matter, I was legitimately at the cache sites, however I have adjusted my standards since then.

 

Now I would not log a cache if my name isn't on the physical logbook. Those 2 are the last I will ever "Log as Virtual."

 

As for allowing it on my caches, it has only come up once, and I did allow it, but now I may not, I'll make that decision on a case by case basis.

[+gh patriot]

I just love those log books in film containers that resemble a spit wad more that a log book and log books that are frozen solid or so wet they disintigrate when you try to open them. I at least put pen to "paper" on em though.

[+OienLabs]

1. What your reasons are/were for claiming a find on a cache that you did not physically sign your name into the logbook.

 

Yes if loggbook is unsignable. If I have a micro log sheet I log that and leave it in the cache. But never caches MIA

 

2. Is this something you normally practice?

 

Only in cases of above situation

 

3. Do you allow others to log your caches that were not signed but were rather "earned"?

 

I regard the posting part of my listings as a free area and I refuses to police it. Ie. anarchy. If somone would like to make a fool of them selves I will let them. Have not happened so far though.

[+ePeterso2]

I do have some cases where I've logged a find without actually signing the log sheet:

 

- One cache I logged a find where I found the container but wasn't able to get the lid off. It was a metal pico capsule thingy with a magnet hidden under a bridge near the beach. The salt air created rust, which fused the two halves together. The next cacher had to bring a pair of pliers to get it apart. It's on my list of Logs To Go Back And Sign When I'm In The Neighborhood.

 

- Two micro caches (in the same park) I found the container and opened the log sheet, but I'd forgotten my pen in the car. I logged 'em as finds and added them to the same List as the above cache.

 

- I've logged finds on caches where I've verified with the owner that the cache is missing, but only after I've replaced the cache. I once did this without first verifying it with the owner and felt guilty for having done so, so I went back and removed my cache before anyone else found it.

 

But those were earlier in my caching days. Now, I don't bother logging a find until I sign the log sheet.

 

-eP

Edited March 13, 2007 by ePeterso2

[Trinity's Crew]

I think there are 2 caches that I logged a find on that were not there. I was still a newbie, and thought that was just what you were supposed to do. I have considered deleting the finds, but it has been so long ago it doesn't really matter, I was legitimately at the cache sites, however I have adjusted my standards since then.

 

Now I would not log a cache if my name isn't on the physical logbook. Those 2 are the last I will ever "Log as Virtual."

 

As for allowing it on my caches, it has only come up once, and I did allow it, but now I may not, I'll make that decision on a case by case basis.

 

How right you are! I'll bet a LOT of people log or have logged questionable finds when they were new. A lot of those same people will also wind up adjusting their standard to more closely reflect the "If you didn't find it it's a DNF" standard over time.

[+TrailGators]

I think there are 2 caches that I logged a find on that were not there. I was still a newbie, and thought that was just what you were supposed to do. I have considered deleting the finds, but it has been so long ago it doesn't really matter, I was legitimately at the cache sites, however I have adjusted my standards since then.

 

Now I would not log a cache if my name isn't on the physical logbook. Those 2 are the last I will ever "Log as Virtual."

 

As for allowing it on my caches, it has only come up once, and I did allow it, but now I may not, I'll make that decision on a case by case basis.

It's funny you said that because one of the first caches I ever found gave me fits. I think I went over to look for it 2-3 times. Anyhow, I finally figured out that the clever hide. The hider tied super thin fishing line to one of the bars of large street grate and then tied the container to that. Anyhow, I looked down below the grate and spotted the tiny cache hanging there! I had such a rush that I had finally found the cache. Anyhow, I pulled up the fishing line and about the time I was going to grab the tiny container, it fell off and landed out of reach at the bottom of the storm drain. I was bummed but I decided to log it because I found it's clever hiding spot! I've also thought about deleting that log but it was so long ago and I honestly found it. I just couldn't "prove" that I found it by signing the log. But I have never done that since. It was my dirty little secret but now that it's off my chest I feel much better! Edited March 14, 2007 by TrailGators

[+ReadyOrNot]

Yes... Once.

 

I was hunting a multi while out of town on business. Three stages with a very cool theme. I found stage one and two but couldn't find three. While I was at GZ some lawncare guys across the road were cleaning up limbs and trash and packing it in their truck. I searched again two days later and found GZ again, and noticed fresh clippings. The owner then visited and confirmed the cache was gone. He allowed me to log the find because I don't know when I'll be back and I was litterally beat to the find by maybe 10 minutes by the muggle groundscrew. I liked the cache and wanted a record of it in my finds log. If I do make it back to the area and the cache is replaced it will be the first one I visit to sign the log.

 

Hmmmm. "I drove up to the cache, but it was too rainy and I didn't want to ruin my new coat. I'm sure I would have found it if I got out of the car, so I am logging a find. I'll come back later when it's not so wet." <-- how is this example any different than the one you just stated? You even stated in your log that you couldn't find it, yet you state that you found it. Anyone else find this odd?

Edited March 14, 2007 by ReadyOrNot

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Yes... Once.

 

I was hunting a multi while out of town on business. Three stages with a very cool theme. I found stage one and two but couldn't find three. While I was at GZ some lawncare guys across the road were cleaning up limbs and trash and packing it in their truck. I searched again two days later and found GZ again, and noticed fresh clippings. The owner then visited and confirmed the cache was gone. He allowed me to log the find because I don't know when I'll be back and I was litterally beat to the find by maybe 10 minutes by the muggle groundscrew. I liked the cache and wanted a record of it in my finds log. If I do make it back to the area and the cache is replaced it will be the first one I visit to sign the log.

 

Hmmmm. "I drove up to the cache, but it was too rainy and I didn't want to ruin my new coat. I'm sure I would have found it if I got out of the car, so I am logging a find. I'll come back later when it's not so wet." <-- how is this example any different than the one you just stated? You even stated in your log that you couldn't find it, yet you state that you found it. Anyone else find this odd?

Read his post again. Then read yours. If you can't see the many and vast differences in the two scenarios then you may not be capable of debating the issue.

[nonaeroterraqueous]

I don't care what other people do, but I don't log a find unless I find the container in some way. Anyone can visit the location, but I need that eureka moment to feel the need to log a find.

 

Yeah, it's a dead horse, but the stables are full of them, and the live ones are getting nervous and running away.

[+poohstickz]

If I recall correctly, I have one find and one alone where I did not sign the log book. In that case, I physically had the cache in my hands. The container was iced up so the only way I was going to get to the log was to destroy the container, which I physically could have done. I took photos and mailed them to the owner. That cache was literally found, was in my hands, and that is beyond dispute. There was also a witness to boot. Now, were there a hard and fast "rule" about signing, and signing alone, being the arbiter of a "find", I'd have been honour bound to have made it a note.

 

Other than that, there are several DNFs in my logs where I was the last person to admit to not finding the cache and the owner subsequently disabled and, in some cases, archived the cache. They confirmed that I'd found the exact spot the cache was supposed to be in, yet I logged them all as DNFs. Why? Because I Did Not Find the cache.

Edited March 14, 2007 by poohstickz

[+ReadyOrNot]

Yes... Once.

 

I was hunting a multi while out of town on business. Three stages with a very cool theme. I found stage one and two but couldn't find three. While I was at GZ some lawncare guys across the road were cleaning up limbs and trash and packing it in their truck. I searched again two days later and found GZ again, and noticed fresh clippings. The owner then visited and confirmed the cache was gone. He allowed me to log the find because I don't know when I'll be back and I was litterally beat to the find by maybe 10 minutes by the muggle groundscrew. I liked the cache and wanted a record of it in my finds log. If I do make it back to the area and the cache is replaced it will be the first one I visit to sign the log.

 

Hmmmm. "I drove up to the cache, but it was too rainy and I didn't want to ruin my new coat. I'm sure I would have found it if I got out of the car, so I am logging a find. I'll come back later when it's not so wet." <-- how is this example any different than the one you just stated? You even stated in your log that you couldn't find it, yet you state that you found it. Anyone else find this odd?

Read his post again. Then read yours. If you can't see the many and vast differences in the two scenarios then you may not be capable of debating the issue.

 

Ok.. He didn't find it. He didn't find it. He didn't find it. Am I missing something here? Does the fact that he missed it by a hair on his chinny chin chin really make a difference here?

 

Jeremy: We need to expand the drop down for cache logging. 1)Found It 2)Found It(Even though it wasn't there) 3)DNF. That should make everything as clear as mud.

Edited March 14, 2007 by ReadyOrNot

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

If I recall correctly, I have one find and one alone where I did not sign the log book. In that case, I physically had the cache in my hands. The container was iced up so the only way I was going to get to the log was to destroy the container, which I physically could have done. I took photos and mailed them to the owner. That cache was literally found, was in my hands, and that is beyond dispute. There was also a witness to boot. Now, were there a hard and fast "rule" about signing, and signing alone, being the arbiter of a "find", I'd have been honour bound to have made it a note.

 

Other than that, there are several DNFs in my logs where I was the last person to admit to not finding the cache and the owner subsequently disabled and, in some cases, archived the cache. They confirmed that I'd found the exact spot the cache was supposed to be in, yet I logged them all as DNFs. Why? Because I Did Not Find the cache.

By my standards, this would count as a find. Sure, you were not able to physically sign the logbook, but you found the physical container, handled it and took a photo of it. This is, to me, a find, and in no way does the cache in this tale qualify as an MIA cache.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

Yes... Once.

 

I was hunting a multi while out of town on business. Three stages with a very cool theme. I found stage one and two but couldn't find three. While I was at GZ some lawncare guys across the road were cleaning up limbs and trash and packing it in their truck. I searched again two days later and found GZ again, and noticed fresh clippings. The owner then visited and confirmed the cache was gone. He allowed me to log the find because I don't know when I'll be back and I was litterally beat to the find by maybe 10 minutes by the muggle groundscrew. I liked the cache and wanted a record of it in my finds log. If I do make it back to the area and the cache is replaced it will be the first one I visit to sign the log.

 

Hmmmm. "I drove up to the cache, but it was too rainy and I didn't want to ruin my new coat. I'm sure I would have found it if I got out of the car, so I am logging a find. I'll come back later when it's not so wet." <-- how is this example any different than the one you just stated? You even stated in your log that you couldn't find it, yet you state that you found it. Anyone else find this odd?

While there are some demonstrable differences between the two tales, the fact remains that the cacher who related the lawncare tale did NOT find the cache container, nor did he not sign the log. Rather, he discovered good evidence that the cache was MIA. I must conclude that for some people, an MIA cache equals a "found it".

[+BlueDeuce]

If I recall correctly, I have one find and one alone where I did not sign the log book. In that case, I physically had the cache in my hands. The container was iced up so the only way I was going to get to the log was to destroy the container, which I physically could have done. I took photos and mailed them to the owner. That cache was literally found, was in my hands, and that is beyond dispute. There was also a witness to boot. Now, were there a hard and fast "rule" about signing, and signing alone, being the arbiter of a "find", I'd have been honour bound to have made it a note.

 

Other than that, there are several DNFs in my logs where I was the last person to admit to not finding the cache and the owner subsequently disabled and, in some cases, archived the cache. They confirmed that I'd found the exact spot the cache was supposed to be in, yet I logged them all as DNFs. Why? Because I Did Not Find the cache.

By my standards, this would count as a find. Sure, you were not able to physically sign the logbook, but you found the physical container, handled it and took a photo of it. This is, to me, a find, and in no way does the cache in this tale qualify as an MIA cache.

 

I have no qualms about someone claiming a find in this situation.

 

To me the cache is out of service, its condition is such that it cannot function as a working cache and I would post only a needs maintenance. Once the cache is fixed or working properly, then I would return, sign the log and post my found it.

[+storm180]

Last year I found parts of a cache scattered all over the place. Container was partially destroyed. Log book was all over the place, along with the content of the cache. Spent a good 30 minutes cleaning things up and left my own container with parts of the log book and anything else I could fit in there. I added a piece of paper to the cache. I would consider that a valid cache to log.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Yes... Once.

 

I was hunting a multi while out of town on business. Three stages with a very cool theme. I found stage one and two but couldn't find three. While I was at GZ some lawncare guys across the road were cleaning up limbs and trash and packing it in their truck. I searched again two days later and found GZ again, and noticed fresh clippings. The owner then visited and confirmed the cache was gone. He allowed me to log the find because I don't know when I'll be back and I was litterally beat to the find by maybe 10 minutes by the muggle groundscrew. I liked the cache and wanted a record of it in my finds log. If I do make it back to the area and the cache is replaced it will be the first one I visit to sign the log.

 

Hmmmm. "I drove up to the cache, but it was too rainy and I didn't want to ruin my new coat. I'm sure I would have found it if I got out of the car, so I am logging a find. I'll come back later when it's not so wet." <-- how is this example any different than the one you just stated? You even stated in your log that you couldn't find it, yet you state that you found it. Anyone else find this odd?

While there are some demonstrable differences between the two tales, the fact remains that the cacher who related the lawncare tale did NOT find the cache container, nor did he not sign the log. Rather, he discovered good evidence that the cache was MIA. I must conclude that for some people, an MIA cache equals a "found it".

Sure, you can "conclude that for some people, an MIA cache equals a "found it" if you want to ignore the rest of the facts - that the owner confirmed it missing and gave permission for the log and that it is an unusual, not normal, occurrence.

 

Yep, ignoring the facts, you are right!

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

Last year I found parts of a cache scattered all over the place. Container was partially destroyed. Log book was all over the place, along with the content of the cache. Spent a good 30 minutes cleaning things up and left my own container with parts of the log book and anything else I could fit in there. I added a piece of paper to the cache. I would consider that a valid cache to log.

I agree; I feel that this is an example of a valid find claim.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

Yes... Once.

 

I was hunting a multi while out of town on business. Three stages with a very cool theme. I found stage one and two but couldn't find three. While I was at GZ some lawncare guys across the road were cleaning up limbs and trash and packing it in their truck. I searched again two days later and found GZ again, and noticed fresh clippings. The owner then visited and confirmed the cache was gone. He allowed me to log the find because I don't know when I'll be back and I was litterally beat to the find by maybe 10 minutes by the muggle groundscrew. I liked the cache and wanted a record of it in my finds log. If I do make it back to the area and the cache is replaced it will be the first one I visit to sign the log.

 

Hmmmm. "I drove up to the cache, but it was too rainy and I didn't want to ruin my new coat. I'm sure I would have found it if I got out of the car, so I am logging a find. I'll come back later when it's not so wet." <-- how is this example any different than the one you just stated? You even stated in your log that you couldn't find it, yet you state that you found it. Anyone else find this odd?

While there are some demonstrable differences between the two tales, the fact remains that the cacher who related the lawncare tale did NOT find the cache container, nor did he not sign the log. Rather, he discovered good evidence that the cache was MIA. I must conclude that for some people, an MIA cache equals a "found it".

Sure, you can "conclude that for some people, an MIA cache equals a "found it" if you want to ignore the rest of the facts - that the owner confirmed it missing and gave permission for the log and that it is an unusual, not normal, occurrence.

 

Yep, ignoring the facts, you are right!

Ed, if I take your example literally, this means that the claim and behaviors which I exhibit at the end of the following tale makes sense:

 

I go to my local organic almost-fast-food burger joint, stand in line, and when I reach the register, I order two half-pound raw organic pasture-fed beef burgers to go, as I plan to bring them home so that Sue and I may munch on them together. The young woman at the counter advises me that they are currently out of stock on all burgers, and she, along with her manager, who has now joined her at the counter, tell me that this silly little fact should not stop me from claiming a burger purchase, and rather, they smile broadly at me and advise me that under the authority vested in them by the burger chain they are kindly giving me full permission to return home and tell Sue that I purchased two half-pound burgers that day at their take-out counter. Wow! Super! And so, armed with their permission to claim my "burger finds", I return home empty-handed and try to convince Sue that I did indeed purchase two raw half-pound organic burgers, one for me and one for her, and that we should now sit down at the table and eat the juicy burgers with great joy!

End of tale.

 

[+Totem Clan]

Ed, I just want to know for my own sake, don't flame me or jump down my throat, because it doesn't matter me what you put in your stats. What's more important to you going out and finding caches or add to your numbers. I'm not accusing you of cheating or calling you a lair or anything like that. Like I said, it's your stats, I don't care. I'm just trying to understand your side of this argument.

[+sbell111]

Ed, if I take your example literally, this means that the claim and behaviors which I exhibit at the end of the following tale makes sense:

 

I go to my local organic almost-fast-food burger joint, stand in line, and when I reach the register, I order two half-pound raw organic pasture-fed beef burgers to go, as I plan to bring them home so that Sue and I may munch on them together. The young woman at the counter advises me that they are currently out of stock on all burgers, and she, along with her manager, who has now joined her at the counter, tell me that this silly little fact should not stop me from claiming a burger purchase, and rather, they smile broadly at me and advise me that under the authority vested in them by the burger chain they are kindly giving me full permission to return home and tell Sue that I purchased two half-pound burgers that day at their take-out counter. Wow! Super! And so, armed with their permission to claim my "burger finds", I return home empty-handed and try to convince Sue that I did indeed purchase two raw half-pound organic burgers, one for me and one for her, and that we should now sit down at the table and eat the juicy burgers with great joy!

End of tale.

 

That story would only be on point if the outcome was acceptable to you. In Ed's example, the logging of the find was an acceptable end result to both the cache owner and searcher.

 

I'm going by the assumption that you went to the restaurant because both you and your wife were hungry. Giving away money for nothing and not eating would not satisfy your hunger. Therefore, I don't think that the offer would be agreeable to you. Similarly, if you were looking for the 'landscaped' cache, you would not agree to logging the find, because you do not feel that it would be acceptable, as you didn't sign the log.

 

A cacher who's goal is to experience the hunt and see the scenery might decide that signing the log is not vitaly important to him. This cacher might accept the offer to call it a find. In this case, the offer is acceptable to both the owner and searcher and could go forward.

 

If you owned the landscaped cache and a searcher wanted to log the missing cache as a find. You would not allow it. The offer would not be acceptable by both parties and would be refused.

[+ZSandmann]

Alright, I kinda saw this coming so I'll reply as I started it. Without excessive quoting even.

 

ReadyOrNot: No I do not relate my story to the one you told. I cache in rain, mud, snow, and all other inclement weather scenarios, no problem with that at all. I actively got out of my vehicle and searched on two occasions, the second was after getting a big hint from the owner. This is when I deduced what had happened the first time. To log this as a find is my one and only time to do so, and as I stated it was because I really enjoyed said hiders multi and did not know when I would be able to return to the site as I was out of town. If I am ever in the area again and this cache is active I will visit it and log my find. I'm not being naive here, I know some won't agree it is a find and that is alright with me. It is not a common practice I follow. And numbers are to me only a way of recording milestones, caching for me has always been about the journey and the experience, check out my profile and you'll see.

 

Vinny: Howdy, big fan of the PUC's, love to read the logs. However, I was quite lost in your allegory. A find is an etheral thing, no physical aspect. However, those burgers are mighty physical, check out my hips I hope they didn't charge you for the organic ether burgers.**

 

 

**Yup some would see the signiture as a physical aspect of the find but thats just bookkeeping. The location is all I'm interested in.

[+boda]

I think there are 2 caches that I logged a find on that were not there. I was still a newbie, and thought that was just what you were supposed to do. I have considered deleting the finds, but it has been so long ago it doesn't really matter, I was legitimately at the cache sites, however I have adjusted my standards since then.

 

Now I would not log a cache if my name isn't on the physical logbook. Those 2 are the last I will ever "Log as Virtual."

 

As for allowing it on my caches, it has only come up once, and I did allow it, but now I may not, I'll make that decision on a case by case basis.

It's funny you said that because one of the first caches I ever found gave me fits. I think I went over to look for it 2-3 times. Anyhow, I finally figured out that the clever hide. The hider tied super thin fishing line to one of the bars of large street grate and then tied the container to that. Anyhow, I looked down below the grate and spotted the tiny cache hanging there! I had such a rush that I had finally found the cache. Anyhow, I pulled up the fishing line and about the time I was going to grab the tiny container, it fell off and landed out of reach at the bottom of the storm drain. I was bummed but I decided to log it because I found it's clever hiding spot! I've also thought about deleting that log but it was so long ago and I honestly found it. I just couldn't "prove" that I found it by signing the log. But I have never done that since. It was my dirty little secret but now that it's off my chest I feel much better!

 

Trailgators, I would support your position - whichever way you would decide in your example.

 

I have a similar example where I found a cache, and as I was putting it back (after signing the log and collecting the FTF prize), some glue failed and the cache plummeted into the abyss. Despite the cache owners and my efforts, it was not recovered.

 

I really don't see any difference between the two examples.

[+TrailGators]

I think there are 2 caches that I logged a find on that were not there. I was still a newbie, and thought that was just what you were supposed to do. I have considered deleting the finds, but it has been so long ago it doesn't really matter, I was legitimately at the cache sites, however I have adjusted my standards since then.

 

Now I would not log a cache if my name isn't on the physical logbook. Those 2 are the last I will ever "Log as Virtual."

 

As for allowing it on my caches, it has only come up once, and I did allow it, but now I may not, I'll make that decision on a case by case basis.

It's funny you said that because one of the first caches I ever found gave me fits. I think I went over to look for it 2-3 times. Anyhow, I finally figured out that the clever hide. The hider tied super thin fishing line to one of the bars of large street grate and then tied the container to that. Anyhow, I looked down below the grate and spotted the tiny cache hanging there! I had such a rush that I had finally found the cache. Anyhow, I pulled up the fishing line and about the time I was going to grab the tiny container, it fell off and landed out of reach at the bottom of the storm drain. I was bummed but I decided to log it because I found it's clever hiding spot! I've also thought about deleting that log but it was so long ago and I honestly found it. I just couldn't "prove" that I found it by signing the log. But I have never done that since. It was my dirty little secret but now that it's off my chest I feel much better!

 

Trailgators, I would support your position - whichever way you would decide in your example.

 

I have a similar example where I found a cache, and as I was putting it back (after signing the log and collecting the FTF prize), some glue failed and the cache plummeted into the abyss. Despite the cache owners and my efforts, it was not recovered.

 

I really don't see any difference between the two examples.

Thanks. If we are talking about "finding" a cache, then I did discover the hidden location of that cache at the given coordinates. So I did "find" it. When we used to play hide-and-seek and you opened the closet and found your little sister, you didn't have to sign her forehead to prove that you found her. But since caches can't vouch for anyone, we have to sign the logbook after we find a cache to prove to others that we actually found the cache. If we didn't do this then people could abuse the system. Like I said before I have always signed the logbook except in that one rare case. Edited March 14, 2007 by TrailGators

[+wimseyguy]

There are quite a few threads on the topic of people logging caches that are MIA or in some cases just didn't find. The owner let's them log a find even though it was never found. There are people that log caches as a sort of memorial to remember the cache as it is archieved. There are all sorts of reasons people do this. I am not asking whether it is right or wrong, whether you agree or disagree.

 

I am just asking...

 

1. What your reasons are/were for claiming a find on a cache that you did not physically sign your name into the logbook.

 

2. Is this something you normally practice?

 

3. Do you allow others to log your caches that were not signed but were rather "earned"?

Even though this seems an awful lot like the other thread on the topic, I'll fish in this pond too.

I found what was left of the cache, or the container with an unusable logsheet. 1A. The cache was shredded by some monster weed wacker, but I found enough identifiable cache bits to be 100% certain in my mind I found the cache. 1B. The cache was burnt but some bits were still recognizable, including a spring from the flashlight that a recent finder had posted as trade swag. 1C. The log sheet was a soggy soaking wet pulpy mass.

 

2. In the cases cited above or any future similer situations, I would still log a find. Happily these experiences have been the minimal exceptions instead of the norm. Otherwise this wouldn't be very much fun would it? I remember one weedwacked cache, and two burnt ones among several finds. Sadly there have been more than a few pulpy masses, but still a fairly small number.

 

3. Please define "earned." If the finder discovered one of my caches in the same sorry condition as the ones I have cited then yes, I would allow the find. If they were merely in the right spot, or saw "where the cache should have been but it was missing", then no.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

Alright, I kinda saw this coming so I'll reply as I started it. Without excessive quoting even.

 

ReadyOrNot: No I do not relate my story to the one you told. I cache in rain, mud, snow, and all other inclement weather scenarios, no problem with that at all. I actively got out of my vehicle and searched on two occasions, the second was after getting a big hint from the owner. This is when I deduced what had happened the first time. To log this as a find is my one and only time to do so, and as I stated it was because I really enjoyed said hiders multi and did not know when I would be able to return to the site as I was out of town. If I am ever in the area again and this cache is active I will visit it and log my find. I'm not being naive here, I know some won't agree it is a find and that is alright with me. It is not a common practice I follow. And numbers are to me only a way of recording milestones, caching for me has always been about the journey and the experience, check out my profile and you'll see.

 

Vinny: Howdy, big fan of the PUC's, love to read the logs. However, I was quite lost in your allegory. A find is an etheral thing, no physical aspect. However, those burgers are mighty physical, check out my hips I hope they didn't charge you for the organic ether burgers.**

 

**Yup some would see the signiture as a physical aspect of the find but thats just bookkeeping. The location is all I'm interested in.

Thanks for your kind words about the PUC caches! What happened with them, once they were placed, amazed me and continues to amaze me, as I had fully expected that -- due to the fact that they were extreme terrain caches -- they would attract only one or two finders per year! And, I too enjoy reading the logs, and also watching some of the find attempts, particularly on PUC #7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and PUC #14.

 

As for the MIA find log question: Well, we must then agree to disagree (which is no problem for me; that is half the fun in life) since to me a find is not entirely ethereal, but rather has the physical components of finding a cache container (or its remnants) and handling it, and opening it and signing the log (or holding it and taking a picture of it if it is encased in ice or inside a translucent space alien egg mass.) However, I am not fanatical nor fundamentalist about anything in life (except for wanting to spend a week with Lara Croft and another week with Xenia Seeberg, the actor who played the part of Xev in the TV SF series Lexx...) and thus, beyond what I have written above as my opinion, I really have no need to argue the matter or to push the analogies! In any case, I've gotta get back to eating my four raw organic 1/2 pound burgers made with pasture-fed beef, with lettuce, tomato, onions and slathered in hot sauce!

Edited March 14, 2007 by Vinny & Sue Team

[+briansnat]

Vinny: Howdy, big fan of the PUC's, love to read the logs. However, I was quite lost in your allegory. A find is an etheral thing, no physical aspect.

 

Maybe that attitude is the reason for the wide gap between "a find is a find" crowd and the "anything goes" bunch.

 

I think the "a find is a find" folk see a find as a totally physical experience. You search for a cache, see it, touch it, sign the log and re-hide it. Nothing ethereal about it at all.

[+ZSandmann]

Yep, I think your correct, and I respect both views. I've seen amazing scenery, amazing hides, and a lot of Wal*Mart parking lots. Each find was different in some way and I liked em all.

 

Points to forum sig as evidence of my perspective in life. BB=Best movie ever!

 

EDIT: I don't speel real good sometimes

Edited March 14, 2007 by ZSandmann

[+Teamcoz]

There has been only once where we have logged a find but didn't sign the log, same reason as someone else has posted, it was frozen in place, we found the cache, took a photo and e-mailed it to the owner, if we had attempted any further to remove the cache to sign the log we were afraid we would have damaged the container. Now that the weather is warmer we will go back and sign the log.

 

We once came across a cache that was MIA, we knew exactly where it should be, on our way out we found the container, but no log, I placed the container in another spot in the park for the cache owner to pick up in case they wanted to use it again. I e-mailed the cache owner and posted a note on the cache page, we did not log a find. Since then someone found the container where I had placed it, and claimed a find, there have been other finds logged since then.

[+ReadyOrNot]

Vinny: Howdy, big fan of the PUC's, love to read the logs. However, I was quite lost in your allegory. A find is an etheral thing, no physical aspect.

 

Maybe that attitude is the reason for the wide gap between "a find is a find" crowd and the "anything goes" bunch.

 

I think the "a find is a find" folk see a find as a totally physical experience. You search for a cache, see it, touch it, sign the log and re-hide it. Nothing ethereal about it at all.

 

I think it's both. A find is a physical and ethereal experience. That's why it's geocaching. If it were purely ethereal, then why put the stupid box in the woods? If it's purely physical, then I wouldn't whine so much about the walmart lamppost hides. Without the box and the logbook, it just isn't geocaching... It's, "My buddy told me to visit this cool place.com"...

 

There are other websites you can go to if you are interested in playing the game without GPS coordinates (letterboxing) or without containers and logbooks (coolplaces). But I thought we were discussing geocaching here folks?

[+Criminal]

A find is an etheral thing, no physical aspect.

I think the "a find is a find" folk see a find as a totally physical experience. You search for a cache, see it, touch it, sign the log and re-hide it. Nothing ethereal about it at all.

 

I think it's both.

I think it’s more sexual. First you desire it, long for it, yearn, you make efforts to enable yourself to experience it, and then you go out looking for it. You strip away any covering, part bushes, and are aroused when you finally get to see it splayed out there in front of you. Then you fondle, stroke, and caress it, and when it’s ready, it opens for you. After leaving your mark, you turn around and walk away.

 

Of course, there are some people who will run and tell their friends they logged it when they didn’t, which will ruin the cache’s reputation, but that’s neither here nor there.

[+ReadyOrNot]

I think it’s more sexual. First you desire it, long for it, yearn, you make efforts to enable yourself to experience it, and then you go out looking for it. You strip away any covering, part bushes, and are aroused when you finally get to see it splayed out there in front of you. Then you fondle, stroke, and caress it, and when it’s ready, it opens for you. After leaving your mark, you turn around and walk away.

 

Of course, there are some people who will run and tell their friends they logged it when they didn’t, which will ruin the cache’s reputation, but that’s neither here nor there.

 

New rule: Rubber gloves are mandatory on any caches visited by criminal

Edited March 14, 2007 by ReadyOrNot

[+DeRock & The Psychic Cacher]

I blame it all on the numbers obsession.

 

Here is my favorite example of folks logging a find on a cache that had been missing for months: Ind. Park. I'm a numbers whore but even I couldn't bring myself to log a find on this one!

 

Deane

AKA: DeRock & the Psychic Cacher - Grattan MI