Jump to content

Why do you log finds on caches that are MIA?


Recommended Posts

Add...

 

9) They were new and the owner offered to allow a find after they posted their DNF so they assumed it was not only okay, but a common practice. :)

In this area the cache owners, almost without exception, will grant a find for missing caches. Since most geocachers (new or experienced) never visit the forums they are not even aware of the controversy. Therefore they accept the offer of a "found it" log because they think it correct and acceptable.
Good point. How about this?

 

9) The owner offers to allow a find after they posted their DNF so they assume it's not only okay to log a find, but common practice to do so.

The thing is, based on Klatch's post, it is not because they 'think it is correct and acceptable'. In thier area, it is correct and acceptable.

 

Agreed. Thanks.

Link to comment
The thing is, based on Klatch's post, it is not because they 'think it is correct and acceptable'. In thier area, it is correct and acceptable.

That implies that everyone in "their" area does that. Is that really true? :) I have a hard time believing that is why they do it. Mainly, because I think most people in all areas don't do that. Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment
The thing is, based on Klatch's post, it is not because they 'think it is correct and acceptable'. In thier area, it is correct and acceptable.

That implies that everyone in "their" area does that. Is that really true? :) I have a hard time believing that is why they do it. Mainly, because I think most people in all areas don't do that.

Here's some people in "their" area who didn't. And here. Although we don't know if they asked for or were offered a "find". But if that's the norm....

Edited by QSparrow
Link to comment
The thing is, based on Klatch's post, it is not because they 'think it is correct and acceptable'. In thier area, it is correct and acceptable.

That implies that everyone in "their" area does that. Is that really true? :) I have a hard time believing that is why they do it. Mainly, because I think most people in all areas don't do that.

Here's some people in "their" area who didn't. And here. Although we don't know if they asked for or were offered a "find". But if that's the norm....

My original post was only to attempt to answer the original question for some geocachers in my area, not to imply it applies to everyone. No one I cache with would accept this kind of offer, but you don't have to look too hard to find some that do. This discussion has once again been led off topic.

Link to comment
No, it only implies that it is a common occurance, and that it isn't generally viewed as improper.
Then what does "In their area" mean?
I don't know. I don't guess it matters. If a cache owner makes an offer to allow an unfound find, I'm not prepared to consider the acceptance of the offer as improper. I certainly won't label these individuals as liars or cheaters and I'm a little shocked that some experienced posters continue to do so. I think this is shameful.
Link to comment
No, it only implies that it is a common occurance, and that it isn't generally viewed as improper.
Then what does "In their area" mean?
I don't know. I don't guess it matters. If a cache owner makes an offer to allow an unfound find, I'm not prepared to consider the acceptance of the offer as improper. I certainly won't label these individuals as liars or cheaters and I'm a little shocked that some experienced posters continue to do so. I think this is shameful.
I wasn't labeling anybody. I was just trying to find out if there were "areas" where this was common practice...
Link to comment

I have read every single post on this thread very carefully and have come to a conclusion:

 

The REAL REASON that cachers post a "FOUND IT" if the cache is missing or if it is too well hidden is...............................................

 

They are TOTALLY Pi**ed because they did not get any SWAG!! And coming away with a smilie gives them just a little bit of solace for walking through all that mud, past all those barking dogs, getting all

those beggar lice and cockle burrs stuck in their new Gold Toe white socks!

 

Yes, I am here to say........THAT IS THE REASON!!! :)

Link to comment

I certainly won't label these individuals as liars or cheaters and I'm a little shocked that some experienced posters continue to do so. I think this is shameful.

Well, that's the way it appears to go down. Ya know, I seriously thought about changing the ONE cache find I have logged this way (out of 387) to a DNF and explain it, just to pacify people, but thought against it. Since I really don't feel I "cheated", then I have just as much right to stand by my convictions as anyone else.

 

So, I guess I will be known for all time (well, in this thread, at least) as "That guy who found it so hard to log actual finds that he took it upon himself to disgrace the game, cause hurt to be had by all who play it, and who really is willing to defame himself, his family, and his God by claiming that one 'bogus' cache find".

 

I guess I can live with that.

Link to comment
If a cache owner makes an offer to allow an unfound find, I'm not prepared to consider the acceptance of the offer as improper.

 

Honest question here. Why is that? Do you think that you are not in a position to consider it improper, do you not consider it improper, or something else?

Link to comment

1. Sometimes I do it just to tick off the people that take their numbers too seriously.

 

That is too funny.

 

I have found a lot of film containers full of soggy paper. I often find them near coordinates I get on this site. When I find one of these film cans full of soggy paper I usually log it as a Find. I never worry about it not being a geocache which is entirely possible I suppose. :wub:

 

When you read my sig line I hope you realize I am passionate about integrity in geocaching. :)

Link to comment

When you read my sig line I hope you realize I am passionate about integrity in geocaching. :)

Yeah. It's great. I'm thinking about using this one for my sig line:

 

"That guy who found it so hard to log actual finds that he took it upon himself to disgrace the game, cause hurt to be had by all who play it, and who really is willing to defame himself, his family, and his God by claiming that one 'bogus' cache find".

 

What do you think?

Link to comment

When you read my sig line I hope you realize I am passionate about integrity in geocaching. :)

Yeah. It's great. I'm thinking about using this one for my sig line:

 

"That guy who found it so hard to log actual finds that he took it upon himself to disgrace the game, cause hurt to be had by all who play it, and who really is willing to defame himself, his family, and his God by claiming that one 'bogus' cache find".

 

What do you think?

I think you seemed to have backed yourself into a corner. What could someone have said to make you want to restore that MIA back to a DNF? I'm sure if some people had used sugar instead of salt you may have done it and then there would be nothing to talk about. :wub:
Link to comment

I wasn't labeling anybody. I was just trying to find out if there were "areas" where this was common practice...

 

In this area the cache owner owns the cache, the practices that apply are determined by the cache owner. I can't imagine anyone telling any cache owner how to act. If you are looking for areas where other people who are not present determine what is correct then I am not aware of any.

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. There are people who think that something is wrong with that, it is hard to conceive of any reason why they should object, but they do.

 

I live in an area where there are moving caches and they are logged multiple times. If someone logged one of these caches a second time with a Note the owner would be totally justified in deleting the Note, a cache belongs to the cache owner and GC.com has no interest in it being any other way.

Link to comment

In this area the cache owner owns the cache, the practices that apply are determined by the cache owner. I can't imagine anyone telling any cache owner how to act.

 

Not even in casual or caching partner conversation? It's done in the forums, it doesn't happen in the real world?

Link to comment

I wasn't labeling anybody. I was just trying to find out if there were "areas" where this was common practice...

 

In this area the cache owner owns the cache, the practices that apply are determined by the cache owner. I can't imagine anyone telling any cache owner how to act. If you are looking for areas where other people who are not present determine what is correct then I am not aware of any.

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. There are people who think that something is wrong with that, it is hard to conceive of any reason why they should object, but they do.

 

I live in an area where there are moving caches and they are logged multiple times. If someone logged one of these caches a second time with a Note the owner would be totally justified in deleting the Note, a cache belongs to the cache owner and GC.com has no interest in it being any other way.

 

The truth is if the site only let people log their adventures like a journal and did not track any find counts, things would change. If people that didn't care about counts had an option to hide their counts from public view then nobody would care what they logged.
Link to comment

"That guy who found it so hard to log actual finds that he took it upon himself to disgrace the game, cause hurt to be had by all who play it, and who really is willing to defame himself, his family, and his God by claiming that one 'bogus' cache find".

 

What do you think?

 

If you claim another you could change "one" to "two ? :)

 

Geocaching is a fun activity, it draws you out into the world, it will add to your life skills and experiences, as you embrace it, it will embrace you. Geocaching can be life changing and life affirming, it is the ultimate in high-tech recreation. Geocaching encourages digital awareness for those who are not digitally inclined and it challenges those who think that the world on the screen is more real than floor underfoot. Geocaching is a fun activity and it is ruled by common sense. I will guess that common sense is the principle guide you followed when you made your sig line. Is changing the record going to change the experience?

Don't ever let go of your common sense, no matter what pressure you feel because geocaching is fun. Your sig line is perfect, it is a slap in the face for those who have abandoned common sense and simple respect, I think you should be proud of it.

Link to comment

I'm thinking about using this one for my sig line:

 

"That guy who found it so hard to log actual finds that he took it upon himself to disgrace the game, cause hurt to be had by all who play it, and who really is willing to defame himself, his family, and his God by claiming that one 'bogus' cache find".

 

What do you think?

 

--------------------

I didn't do it.

Nobody saw me do it.

You can't prove a thing.

- Bart Simpson

Umm... I like the current one, mostly 'cuz it hurts my head to figure out what you're saying in the new one... :)

Link to comment

In this area the cache owner owns the cache, the practices that apply are determined by the cache owner. I can't imagine anyone telling any cache owner how to act.

 

Not even in casual or caching partner conversation? It's done in the forums, it doesn't happen in the real world?

 

My practice has been to "tell" them when I am asked but to "suggest", "advise" or "add remarks" at all other times. I once told a cacher their cache was too close to the railroad tracks, it was 400' away, that knocks one off the high horse in a hurry. :)

 

The next time I felt compelled to tell a fellow cacher what to do I used a different tack and it worked fine. There really is no exception to this rule, the cache owner owns the cache. Would you "tell" your neighbour what to plant in their garden?

Edited by wavector
Link to comment

Would you "tell" your neighbour what to plant in their garden?

 

Ah analogies. Living in farm country, if it went against local guidelines, yes I would. We all live together.

 

In geocaching, telling isn't the same as requiring unless gc.com enforces it. The right to do and the right to disagree is all the same. It's just a matter of influence.

 

edit: typo

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?

Link to comment
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?
Replacing a cache on behalf of the owner is fine. As long as you confirm with the owner or someone that has found the cache before and knows exactly where it is. I also think this is a very considerate thing to do. It seems silly to make the owner go and replace it and then come back some other day when you already know exactly where it is. People object to this because they think people drop extra caches. It does happen but it's rare. Maybe some people don't consider this a "find." But what if you were with the owner when he replaced it? Edited by TrailGators
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?

 

Perhaps you would comment on the example I used

 

I will, but right now it's getting late and I need to check to make sure I'm on topic for the thread.

 

Seriously, I have lost track of which thread is for what discussion. A little review is in order.

 

edit: added '

Edited by BlueDeuce
Link to comment

Ah analogies. Living in farm country, if it went against local guidelines, yes I would. We all live together.

 

You lost me.

Telling your neighbour what to plant in their garden is not the same as telling them that what they intend to plant is against local guidelines.

 

Telling cache owners how to handle their caches won't work, it is their cache

The cache is already approved so it meets the GC guidelines.

Would you tell the cache owner he had to retract the permission he gave?

If the people finding the cache log it as a Find and the cache owner said to do that does anyone have any right deciding that their transaction is flawed?

Link to comment

Ah analogies. Living in farm country, if it went against local guidelines, yes I would. We all live together.

 

You lost me.

Telling your neighbour what to plant in their garden is not the same as telling them that what they intend to plant is against local guidelines.

 

Telling cache owners how to handle their caches won't work, it is their cache

The cache is already approved so it meets the GC guidelines.

Would you tell the cache owner he had to retract the permission he gave?

If the people finding the cache log it as a Find and the cache owner said to do that does anyone have any right deciding that their transaction is flawed?

I'm lost at this logic. Cache is MIA and just because the cache owner says log it that makes it right?

So I can plant a cache and have it go missing and just tell people to log it multiple times? After all I am the cache owner. But it still wouldn't be right.

Link to comment

Ya know, I seriously thought about changing the ONE cache find I have logged this way (out of 387) to a DNF and explain it, just to pacify people, but thought against it. Since I really don't feel I "cheated", then I have just as much right to stand by my convictions as anyone else.

As a LEO I spent my entire life dealing with serious criminals, murderers, and rapists. Even they could come up with a reason in their mind to justify their actions. Didn't mean they were right but in their minds they always thought they were right. Usually it was someone else's fault or it was because someone owed them. No different than claiming a find when it's not really there. Afterall, someone "owes" you because you looked but it's not there. And since they "owe" you the find then twist the reasoning to justify a find.

Logging a DNF is not in the same ballpark as a murderer, rapist, or hardened criminal but the mentality of justifying whatever you want to yourself, even tho wrong, is the same. All you have to do is convince yourself that what you do is right even tho it's not. It's about a person's personal integrity. Either you have it or you don't. Integrity isn't about doing what's right when people are watching. It's doing what's right when no one will know. You've clearly shown where yours is.

 

So, I guess I will be known for all time (well, in this thread, at least) as "That guy who found it so hard to log actual finds that he took it upon himself to disgrace the game, cause hurt to be had by all who play it, and who really is willing to defame himself, his family, and his God by claiming that one 'bogus' cache find".

Much simpler explanation than that. Just looked upon as another one who bends the rules to fit their own game to make themselves look and feel better.

Is that the kind of attitude you'd want your kids growing up with? Do whatever it takes, bend the rules, and live lies? Guess so, but you aren't the first kinds like that either.

 

I guess I can live with that.

Heard that line many times too as a LEO.

Edited by Wadcutter
Link to comment

Ah analogies. Living in farm country, if it went against local guidelines, yes I would. We all live together.

 

You lost me.

Telling your neighbour what to plant in their garden is not the same as telling them that what they intend to plant is against local guidelines.

 

Telling cache owners how to handle their caches won't work, it is their cache

The cache is already approved so it meets the GC guidelines.

Would you tell the cache owner he had to retract the permission he gave?

If the people finding the cache log it as a Find and the cache owner said to do that does anyone have any right deciding that their transaction is flawed?

I'm lost at this logic. Cache is MIA and just because the cache owner says log it that makes it right?

So I can plant a cache and have it go missing and just tell people to log it multiple times? After all I am the cache owner. But it still wouldn't be right.

Actually, the way they are talking, an owner could have a cache (that he never actually had a container for) and he could tell everyone to log when they don't find it. As everyone knows new virtuals are no longer permitted. So it seems like that would apply to part-time virtuals (MIAs) as well as full-time virtuals. Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment

Logging a DNF is not in the same ballpark as a murderer, rapist, or hardened criminal but the mentality of justifying whatever you want to yourself, even tho wrong, is the same. All you have to do is convince yourself that what you do is right even tho it's not. It's about a person's personal integrity. Either you have it or you don't. Integrity isn't about doing what's right when people are watching. It's doing what's right when no one will know. You've clearly shown where yours is.

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. Yes the people who claim a find on a cache they didn't find are lying about it. I doubt they are breaking the rules - though the puritans can always seem to find something in guidelines or that Jeremy posted three years ago and argue that there's a rule. And someone will think that inflating one's "numbers" is unfair to someone who didn't. I think the people who deflate their numbers by not logging every cache online are just as bad.

Link to comment

I think, by and large, cachers are pretty honest when it comes to finding caches. Otherwise, what is the point of caching? There is no huge reward in it, other than the hobby of it. You must like the hunt, and earn your numbers as you go. I mean, anyone could just log away "found" on any and every cache posted. But why? And if anyone is that pathetic, then let them have their glory in their own dishonesty.

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. Yes the people who claim a find on a cache they didn't find are lying about it. I doubt they are breaking the rules - though the puritans can always seem to find something in guidelines or that Jeremy posted three years ago and argue that there's a rule. And someone will think that inflating one's "numbers" is unfair to someone who didn't. I think the people who deflate their numbers by not logging every cache online are just as bad.

 

Read the red. Then read the green. Using logic, one must assume that you are saying "Lying is not breaking the rules"... Do you really need someone to tell you that lying is against the rules? By the way, using an ammo box as your personal toilet is bad form.. Thought I'd let you know since it doesn't say that in the guidelines.

Link to comment

I STILL think it's because of the foiled Swag retrieval!

 

Without the comforting softness of a McHuggies toy, a cacher has just GOT to come away with

SOMETHING on a missing in action cache! :)

 

As far as honesty goes....I don't think he is going to stab you in the back any quicker than

"Dudley Dooright" that crosses all the "tees" and dots all the "eyes"! :D

Link to comment
If a cache owner makes an offer to allow an unfound find, I'm not prepared to consider the acceptance of the offer as improper.
Honest question here. Why is that? Do you think that you are not in a position to consider it improper, do you not consider it improper, or something else?
Thanks for asking. The site is set up to require the cache owner to determine what constitutes a find. If he and the seeker believe that the location is the thing, that is completely up to them and I believe that that 'find' would be proper.

 

Lets say that a cacher happens upon an amazing, scenic location. He places a cache there because he wants to share the location with others. The cache quickly gets eaten by a bear. A cacher arrives at the location, is amazed by nature's wonder, but can't find the cache (because he didn't check the nearby scat). He posts his adventure as a DNF. The cache owner shoots him an email. He states that he checked on the cache and it was missing. He further explains that he only placed the cache to show people the splendor. Since the seeker obtained the experience that was planned by the cache, the owner offers to let him log it as a find. He clearly found what the cache owner wanted him to. He certainly made enough of a 'find' to satisfy the cache owner and that is what the guidelines require.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
If the people finding the cache log it as a Find and the cache owner said to do that does anyone have any right deciding that their transaction is flawed?
Of course, we all have a right to decide what we think and express our opinions. Don't we?
We certainly do, right up to the point where we bump up to the forum guidelines. Personally, I believe that when a person calls people cheats and liars (even when he doesn't point it at specific individuals), he has violated those guidelines.
Link to comment
Thanks for asking. The site is set up to require the cache owner to determine what constitutes a find. If he and the seeker believe that the location is the thing, that is completely up to them and I believe that that 'find' would be proper.

 

Lets say that a cacher happens upon an amazing, scenic location. He places a cache there because he wants to share the location with others. The cache quickly gets eaten by a bear. A cacher arrives at the location, is amazed by nature's wonder, but can't find the cache (because he didn't check the nearby scat). He posts his adventure as a DNF. The cache owner shoots him an email. He states that he checked on the cache and it was missing. He further explains that he only placed the cache to show people the splendor. Since the seeker obtained the experience that was planned by the cache, the owner offers to let him log it as a find. He clearly found what the cache owner wanted him to. He certainly made enough of a 'find' to satisfy the cache owner and that is what the guidelines require.

 

I've got to respectfully disagree. (without calling anyone a cheat or liar, which I've never done)

 

Waymarks are about experiences only.

 

Geocaching is a Waymark with a container and a logbook.

 

I also find it strange that so many folks are actually calling folks from the cache site to quiz them about missing caches. I have many fellow cachers phone numbers, but I wouldn't call them everytime I can't find their cache. It's just a cache! It's just a DNF and I'll email them later.

Edited by Googling Hrpty Hrrs
Link to comment

As a LEO I spent my entire life dealing with serious criminals, murderers, and rapists.

I have also spent a large percentage of my life dealing with the underbelly of society. (since December of '82) For me to get judgmental on someone, I have to look past their actions to their intentions. In my opinion, someone has to have an intent to deceive for their to be a lie. If I were to log a "Find" on a cache that I never made any attempt on, and state in my log that I located it, my intention would be to deceive the cache owner and any member of the caching community who might look at my log. In that instance, I would be speaking untruthfully, and I would deserve whatever lumps the community gave me. However, if I post a log describing how I searched high & low and couldn't locate anything resembling a cache, and the owner allows me to change the log type from a "DNF" to a "Found It", I am not attempting to deceive anybody, and I would take umbrage at those who would say I was untruthful. Questioning someone's moral fiber because they accepted such an offer makes you look like a bully, and bullying is also a strike in the great checklist of a person's character. Geocaching is not a religion. Someone who plays differently than you is not a sinner. There is no 11th Commandment declaring "Thou shalt not log a find on an MIA cache".

(I wish I were better at this computer stuff. I'd add some thunder in the background for effect) :)

 

Much simpler explanation than that. Just looked upon as another one who bends the rules to fit their own game to make themselves look and feel better.

The problem with this logic is that, in this instance, there are no rules prohibiting the behavior being discussed. None. Zip. Nada. They don't exist. If they did, I would probably agree with you. Breaking the rules is wrong. Violating the guidelines is wrong. Logging a "Find" on an MIA cache does not break any rules, nor does it violate any guidelines.

 

Is that the kind of attitude you'd want your kids growing up with? Do whatever it takes, bend the rules, and live lies?

Once again you're playing the morality card when there is no justification to do so. There are no rules being bent. There are no lies being told. The "attitude" I want my kids to grow up with is to use their head for something other than a hat rack. To recognize that the only true sin is unnecessarily hurting another person, and every other so called sin is nothing more than nonsense invented by religious extremists.

 

Lets say that a cacher happens upon an amazing, scenic location. He places a cache there because he wants to share the location with others. The cache quickly gets eaten by a bear. A cacher arrives at the location, is amazed by nature's wonder, but can't find the cache (because he didn't check the nearby scat). He posts his adventure as a DNF. The cache owner shoots him an email. He states that he checked on the cache and it was missing. He further explains that he only placed the cache to show people the splendor. Since the seeker obtained the experience that was planned by the cache, the owner offers to let him log it as a find. He clearly found what the cache owner wanted him to. He certainly made enough of a 'find' to satisfy the cache owner and that is what the guidelines require.

Can I get an "Amen"? :D

Link to comment
If a cache owner makes an offer to allow an unfound find, I'm not prepared to consider the acceptance of the offer as improper.
Honest question here. Why is that? Do you think that you are not in a position to consider it improper, do you not consider it improper, or something else?
Thanks for asking. The site is set up to require the cache owner to determine what constitutes a find. If he and the seeker believe that the location is the thing, that is completely up to them and I believe that that 'find' would be proper.

 

Lets say that a cacher happens upon an amazing, scenic location. He places a cache there because he wants to share the location with others. The cache quickly gets eaten by a bear. A cacher arrives at the location, is amazed by nature's wonder, but can't find the cache (because he didn't check the nearby scat). He posts his adventure as a DNF. The cache owner shoots him an email. He states that he checked on the cache and it was missing. He further explains that he only placed the cache to show people the splendor. Since the seeker obtained the experience that was planned by the cache, the owner offers to let him log it as a find. He clearly found what the cache owner wanted him to. He certainly made enough of a 'find' to satisfy the cache owner and that is what the guidelines require.

 

I see the owner’s misunderstanding, while the scenery and such are a nice place to visit he brought the cacher there to find a cache container, first and foremost.

 

and I would also like to point out that the guidelines require that a cache must include a logbook to be approved.

 

edit: changed mistake to misunderstanding.

 

Edit II: I don't think I'm supposed to be debating this here so I'm moving over to another thread.

Edited by BlueDeuce
Link to comment

Oh, really? Just where might my integrity be? Thankfully, as a LEO I'm sure you're trained in helping people find theirs, aren't you?

Since you asked, yeah, I was trained to help people understand integrity. I taught a class at our LE academy to all new LEOs on integrity. It's a 4 hr course. Your examples would have been a good case study for the class.

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.

You didn't read my early posts. I said play the game your way and I'll play it mine. But we're discussing the integrity of those who log finds on MIAs. That's the discussion.

I have also spent a large percentage of my life dealing with the underbelly of society. (since December of '82)

I did it for 35 yrs.

For me to get judgmental on someone, I have to look past their actions to their intentions.

The question on this thread is "why do you log finds on caches that are MIA?" So why do they? Their intentions? Either they find it or they don't. Just because they don't find it doesn't mean the cache isn't there. If it isn't really there and there is evidence it isn't there then there are other logging mechanisms provided for reporting that.

In my opinion, someone has to have an intent to deceive for their to be a lie.

Or they can just convince themselves that by golly, they're owed a find because they looked. It goes back to personal integrity. No one really cares if they lie, they gain nothing, but they lie to themselves and have convinced themselves it's OK because by golly, it's owed to them. So why do they log a find when they didn't find anything?

. However, if I post a log describing how I searched high & low and couldn't locate anything resembling a cache, and the owner allows me to change the log type from a "DNF" to a "Found It", I am not attempting to deceive anybody, and I would take umbrage at those who would say I was untruthful.

All that does is show the cache owner's lack of personal integrity too. If you want to do something which isn't correct and I let you do something that isn't correct, does that make it right? "He told me to" is an excuse kids use when they get caught. Didn't your momma ever say "If someone told you to jump off a cliff you'd do it?"

. Questioning someone's moral fiber because they accepted such an offer makes you look like a bully, and bullying is also a strike in the great checklist of a person's character. Geocaching is not a religion. Someone who plays differently than you is not a sinner. There is no 11th Commandment declaring "Thou shalt not log a find on an MIA cache".

We're not questioning anyone's moral fiber. They've explained their own moral fiber.

.

The problem with this logic is that, in this instance, there are no rules prohibiting the behavior being discussed. None. Zip. Nada. They don't exist. If they did, I would probably agree with you. Breaking the rules is wrong. Violating the guidelines is wrong. Logging a "Find" on an MIA cache does not break any rules, nor does it violate any guidelines.

Go to FAQ page http://www.geocaching.com/faq/ and there are descriptions/guidelines. There is an explanation:

"What are the rules in Geocaching?

Geocaching is a relatively new phenomenon. Therefore, the rules are very simple:

1. Take something from the cache

2. Leave something in the cache

3. Write about it in the logbook

Where you place a cache is up to you. "

Another guideline:

http://www.geocaching.com/about/finding.aspx

Edited by Wadcutter
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. Yes the people who claim a find on a cache they didn't find are lying about it. I doubt they are breaking the rules - though the puritans can always seem to find something in guidelines or that Jeremy posted three years ago and argue that there's a rule. And someone will think that inflating one's "numbers" is unfair to someone who didn't. I think the people who deflate their numbers by not logging every cache online are just as bad.

 

Read the red. Then read the green. Using logic, one must assume that you are saying "Lying is not breaking the rules"... Do you really need someone to tell you that lying is against the rules? By the way, using an ammo box as your personal toilet is bad form.. Thought I'd let you know since it doesn't say that in the guidelines.

Woe to me. I just found a liar's cache. The cache owner says in order to log a find I have to tell a lie. But lying is breaking the rules. Do I lie and claim my find? Should I claim a DNF because I was taught in Sunday school that lying is evil? I am so confused. Maybe I should just take a crap in the cache container :D
Link to comment
Lets say that a cacher happens upon an amazing, scenic location. He places a cache there because he wants to share the location with others. The cache quickly gets eaten by a bear. A cacher arrives at the location, is amazed by nature's wonder, but can't find the cache (because he didn't check the nearby scat). He posts his adventure as a DNF. The cache owner shoots him an email. He states that he checked on the cache and it was missing. He further explains that he only placed the cache to show people the splendor. Since the seeker obtained the experience that was planned by the cache, the owner offers to let him log it as a find. He clearly found what the cache owner wanted him to. He certainly made enough of a 'find' to satisfy the cache owner and that is what the guidelines require.
Can I get an "Amen"? :D
I always enjoyed a good virtual just for this reason. Caching has always been about discovering kewl locations. However, the site no longer allows us to list virtuals but it does allow owners to turn their missing caches into virtuals? Also what about missing caches in less kewl locations? I'm just asking because I'm curious. :) Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment

However, the site no longer allows us to list virtuals but it does allow owners to turn their missing caches into virtuals? Also what about missing caches in less kewl locations? I'm just asking because I'm curious. :anicute:

This is not correct. A missing cache container that is not replaced is grounds for archival under our maintenance guidelines. Since fall of 2005, there's no such thing as "this cache is now a virtual." If you know of such a cache, you should encourage the owner to fulfill their maintenance obligation or, failing that, bring the cache to the local reviewer's attention.

Link to comment

The thread asks why some people engage in a particular logging tactic. Other posts are off-topic.

 

If someone's brave enough to come into the thread and post an on-topic answer, they should be free to do so without fear of being labeled or attacked. This is true regardless of which side of the argument you're on. The forums are for respectful discussions to promote a better understanding of our game.

 

I'm going to leave this thread alone for a few hours. If I return and see further off topic posts, posts talking about "puritans" and "hedonists," posts talking about witch hunts, posts labeling people as liars, etc., then we'll start handing out penalty tickets.

Bumping my prior post to the current page. Please remember to stay on-topic. Most of you are doing a fine job. Thank you.

Link to comment

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"?

 

From another post:

 

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

 

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

 

I felt justified then, and I still feel the same

Link to comment

However, the site no longer allows us to list virtuals but it does allow owners to turn their missing caches into virtuals? Also what about missing caches in less kewl locations? I'm just asking because I'm curious. :anicute:

This is not correct. A missing cache container that is not replaced is grounds for archival under our maintenance guidelines. Since fall of 2005, there's no such thing as "this cache is now a virtual." If you know of such a cache, you should encourage the owner to fulfill their maintenance obligation or, failing that, bring the cache to the local reviewer's attention.

The main reason I posted that is that some were making it sound like cache owners could decide if people could post virtual finds on their missing caches. This is "why" they were logging finds. The bottom line is that these cache owners were not following the guidelines and that is what I wanted to clarify. Thanks. :huh: Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment

The listing guidelines focus on the cache container, not the logs.

 

If a container goes missing, and is replaced within a reasonable period of time, then the owner has fulfilled their maintenance obligation and the cache will not be archived. If the owner chooses to allow a virtual find by someone who discovers that the cache is missing, that is between the owner and the logger. Cache reviewers are not the log police.

 

In contrast, if the owner decides not to replace the container at all, but simply declares that the cache is now loggable as a virtual, then this is grounds for archival due to lack of maintenance.

Link to comment
No one really cares if they lie, they gain nothing, but they lie to themselves and have convinced themselves it's OK because by golly, it's owed to them.

But they didn't lie. Your continued berating accomplishes nothing but spreading angst.

(not that there's anything wrong with that, if it is your objective) :huh:

 

So why do they log a find when they didn't find anything?

Asked & answered....repeatedly.

 

All that does is show the cache owner's lack of personal integrity too.

Ahhh... So they are both liars with low morals. I see. :anicute:

 

If you want to do something which isn't correct and I let you do something that isn't correct, does that make it right?

If I want to do something that is legal, not against the rules and not against the guidelines, and you let me do something that is legal, not against the rules and not against the guidelines, should I alter my behavior to satisfy a vocal minority who can't seem to exist without slinging mud on their brethren?

 

Didn't your momma ever say "If someone told you to jump off a cliff you'd do it?"

Can we leave my Mom out of this? Thanx!

 

We're not questioning anyone's moral fiber. They've explained their own moral fiber.

Not quite. What they've done is describe a behavior. You've decided that this behavior is sinful. Ergo, you are the one making moral judgments.

 

Go to FAQ page http://www.geocaching.com/faq/ and there are descriptions/guidelines. Another guideline:

http://www.geocaching.com/about/finding.aspx

Brother, you do know the difference between FAQ's, guidelines and rules, right?

 

I taught a class at our LE academy to all new LEOs on integrity. It's a 4 hr course.

Reminds me of an expression. "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach".

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...