Jump to content

Why do you log finds on caches that are MIA?


Recommended Posts

I've also seen posts in this thread where folks who practice this particular form of logging are called "liars". The ones slinging the "liar Liar, Pants On Fire" comments are the folks deserving white robe status, in my opinion. If you wish to join such a group, that is your choice. There are many organizations across the globe where intolerance is actively encouraged. You might feel welcome there, but I do not. Unless you can show me a set of rules by which this game must be played, please refrain from imposing your values upon me.

 

If I consider myself to be lying when I log a cache found that was not actually found, then I would have to consider others to be lying when they do the same. I don't buy into your situational ethics. I don't think it's right to be calling people liars, I think their actions speak for themselves.

 

If you're 100 pounds overweight, we can argue about whether or not you are "Fat" according to your own skewed view on life. If it makes you feel better calling yourself slender, then you have every right to believe that, but don't try to convince me of your crazed situational ethics. Here you are again claiming that you don't care what others do, but you are sitting at the fore-front of the debate, engaging those with a differing opinion. You can't have it both ways. If you really don't care, then go do something else.

Link to comment

What I've seen so far in this thread are a few curious people asking why people make false statements in their online logs, nothing more, nothing less.

And what I've seen so far goes far beyond that. The "curious" are not merely asking "why". They are belittling and degrading those that do. Imposing their standards on everyone. Sounds pretty zealous to me.

Link to comment

What I've seen so far in this thread are a few curious people asking why people make false statements in their online logs, nothing more, nothing less.

And what I've seen so far goes far beyond that. The "curious" are not merely asking "why". They are belittling and degrading those that do. Imposing their standards on everyone. Sounds pretty zealous to me.

 

Don't you understand that both sides are imposing their view on the other? You are making the assumption that somehow taking the side of "Play how you want to play" is the higher moral ground. Just because I disagree with your perspective, you cast judgement upon me. THAT sounds pretty zealous to me.

Link to comment

Don't you understand that both sides are imposing their view on the other? You are making the assumption that somehow taking the side of "Play how you want to play" is the higher moral ground. Just because I disagree with your perspective, you cast judgement upon me. THAT sounds pretty zealous to me.

Oh, really? Please show me, in any post from anybody, where the ones who have chosen to "play their way" have shown higer moral ground. Please, show me. 'Cuz I just don't see it.

Link to comment
What I want to know is why would you want to?

I think the most resounding answer, (at least in this thread), is that the smiley represents a reward. It can be a reward for locating a container, a reward for opening said container or a reward for effort expended upon the hunt for the container, depending on the beliefs of the cache owner and finder. As a cache owner, I am appreciative of anyone who discovers a problem with one of my caches, (MIA/Etc), and often offer to allow the person notifying me to change their DNF to a find as a reward. I have also had this offer given to me on several occasions, but as yet, I haven't taken anybody up on it.

 

Just because I apply a set of values on myself, doesn't mean I'm willing to impose those same values on others, in a game without rules. If the game did have rules, I might feel differently. I might even be willing to don my own Inquisitor's robes, take up my pitchfork & torch, and join the small minded zealots in their little witch hunt.

I think I agree with everything in that post.

It's a start. But really no way to argue with the puritans.

 

The truth is that you didn't find the cache. Even a lesser puritan who might accept a find when you had a excuse for not signing the log will tell you that if all you found was a spot where the cache may have been then you didn't find the cache.

 

What you really have to do is argue that an online "Found It" log ≠ finding the cache.

 

It is clear that many people find caches and never log online (or perhaps log a note instead of a find). The puritans think its silly when I check the physical logs in my caches to cross out the names of anyone who didn't log it online. The other direction is more difficult to argue. Clan Riffster is right is seeing that some geocachers view the smiley count as a reward that is given out by the cache owner. To a puritan the online log is merely a tally of the caches you've found, so the idea of it being a reward is anathema. However, it is up to the cache owner to determine which logs are bogus or counterfeit. Defacto, a cache owner can decide to award a "Found It" log to someone just for being in the right place.

 

There is nothing in the guideline to indicate if it is OK to award a 'Found It' log to someone who didn't find the cache. However, if the cache is listed as an unknown/mystery cache (as of the latest guidelines) the cache owner can deny a 'Found It' log to someone who found the cache and signed the log but did not meet additional logging requirements. TPTB have indicated that they are not going to be the log police. They may have indicate that they think the practice is silly, but they are not going to stop it. The puritans can only resort to make their argument in the forum that cache owners should not award these 'Found It' logs.

 

On the other hand, cache owners cannot force anyone to log a 'Found It'. The puritans can continue to use the 'Found It' as a tally while others can view it a reward. With a couple of rare exceptions where a puritan would waste time and gas looking for a cache because there was a 'Found It' log, this use has no effect on the puritan. Personally if I was avoiding looking for a cache that had several DNFs on it and all of a sudden someone logged a find, I would look at that log to determine if I really thought the cache was there. Most of these case, the 'Found It' log indicates that the cache wasn't there. Geocaching is a light, fun activity. Much like friendly golf, people will take "gimmes" and "mulligans". Its just a game and the puritans should get over the fact that some people play it that way.

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment
I don't buy into your situational ethics.

Then you are obviously not a student of history. If you were, you'd know that all ethics are situational.

(But then, I kinda figured that out from previous posts)

 

If you're 100 pounds overweight, we can argue about whether or not you are "Fat" according to your own skewed view on life.

I didn't realize that withholding vitriol was a "skewed" view on life. Perhaps your ethics are as "situational" as mine. If you see a person who is overweight, and you feel compelled to comment to them about it, you can say "You are overweight", or you can say "You are a lard***". Both statements would be technically accurate, yet one would be perceived as deliberately insulting, while the other would not. In this particular instance, the topic is even grayer than your little obesity morality play, since Groundspeak has declined to comment on what constitutes a "Find". If I locate a cracked Gladware lid surrounded by bits of swag, is that a "Find"? If I locate a container but can't sign the log, is that a "Find"? Many in this thread have already given their blessings on both those situations, yet my "skewed" ethics would say neither rates a "Find" to me. As you can see, there exists a huge gulf in the beliefs regarding what is, and what is not, a "Find". Trying to enforce your closed minded viewpoint as the only acceptable version of reality simply sets yourself up for ridicule.

 

Here you are again claiming that you don't care what others do, but you are sitting at the fore-front of the debate, engaging those with a differing opinion. You can't have it both ways. If you really don't care, then go do something else.

Can you direct me to where I said I don't care what others do? I can't seem to find it.

Link to comment
What I want to know is why would you want to?

I think the most resounding answer, (at least in this thread), is that the smiley represents a reward. It can be a reward for locating a container, a reward for opening said container or a reward for effort expended upon the hunt for the container, depending on the beliefs of the cache owner and finder. As a cache owner, I am appreciative of anyone who discovers a problem with one of my caches, (MIA/Etc), and often offer to allow the person notifying me to change their DNF to a find as a reward. I have also had this offer given to me on several occasions, but as yet, I haven't taken anybody up on it.

 

Just because I apply a set of values on myself, doesn't mean I'm willing to impose those same values on others, in a game without rules. If the game did have rules, I might feel differently. I might even be willing to don my own Inquisitor's robes, take up my pitchfork & torch, and join the small minded zealots in their little witch hunt.

That is how I feel too. If the owner and the finder seeker are OK with it so am I. That is not going to affect me in anyway, so log on. But I just don't know why you, as the finder seeker, would want to. :rolleyes:

Link to comment

I've also seen posts in this thread where folks who practice this particular form of logging are called "liars". The ones slinging the "liar Liar, Pants On Fire" comments are the folks deserving white robe status, in my opinion. If you wish to join such a group, that is your choice.

You keep attempting to hide behind this derogatory statement instead of intelligently discussing the real issue.

 

Fact: You can’t find something that isn’t there to find, regardless of what ‘it’ is. You cannot ‘find’ your car keys on the kitchen counter if your kid flushed them down the toilet. To keep denying this simple fact is to be only argumentative for argument sake. It is silly and adds nothing intelligent to the debate. Intolerance has nothing to do with it and is a silly attempt to negatively label the exposure of the issue.

 

Fact: If you claim to do something you haven’t done, you are telling a lie It may not be politically correct, but the word that is defined by that action is ”lie”. Several veterans claim to have been awarded the Medal of Honor, and while they certainly fought in the war and received medals, they never received that medal. They are liars. Sorry if that hurts your ‘everything goes’ attitude, but it is the reality.

 

Now, if you want to petition Seattle to change the selections in the drop down box to exclude Found It and Didn’t Find It, and replace it with “Claiming Smiley” you are free to do so, but as it stands right now, your only choices are Found It, Didn’t Find It, Needs Maintenance, note, and Should be Archived. If you find the spot where the cache used to be, and the cache is gone, you can choose all but one of those to post on the cache page and maintain your integrity. If you select Found It, you are a liar. Lying is already commonly regarded as reprehensible, how much more revolting is it to lie when you’re playing a silly game like geocaching that uses the honor system as its scorekeeper?

If you wish to join such a group, that is your choice.

You are part of that group, we’re called Geocachers.

Edited by Criminal
Link to comment

I guess I must be a caching 'Reformist'. :rolleyes:

 

I hear what, as some have called them, the 'Puritans' have to say, and for my OWN logging habits, I agree with their idea of how to log. MY online logging is for ME to track MY unique finds. Yes, others may view them and enjoy them or find them useful, but the type of log I chose is based on keeping track of MY finds for ME.

 

I also hear what, to use a religious term, the 'Pagans' :P:unsure: say. They too are right about their logs being their logs. They should be able to log them as they wish, if the owner agrees. As long as they are not interfering with other cachers, they are not hurting anyone.

 

I think, as is many times the case, the truth lies somewhere in between.

Link to comment

There are many organizations across the globe where intolerance is actively encouraged. You might feel welcome there, but I do not. Unless you can show me a set of rules by which this game must be played, please refrain from imposing your values upon me.

Clan Riffster takes his car to the dealer to be repaired. The tie-rod is broken and needs to be replaced.

 

Mechanic: All fixed! Please pay the cashier.

CR: Uh, but it’s still broken, you didn’t fix anything!

Mechanic: You’re so intolerant!

Edited by Criminal
Link to comment

There are many organizations across the globe where intolerance is actively encouraged. You might feel welcome there, but I do not. Unless you can show me a set of rules by which this game must be played, please refrain from imposing your values upon me.

Clan Riffster takes his car to the dealer to be repaired. The tie-rod is broken and needs to be replaced.

 

Mechanic: All fixed! Please pay the cashier.

CR: Uh, but it’s still broken, you didn’t fix anything!

Mechanic: You’re so intolerant!

:P:rolleyes::unsure:

Link to comment

Amen, again. I think the critical issue in this debate is, 'What is a find'. Who gets to answer that question?

 

How about dictionary.com:

find:

1. to come upon by chance; meet with: He found a nickel in the street.

2. to locate, attain, or obtain by search or effort: to find an apartment; to find happiness.

3. to locate or recover (something lost or misplaced): I can't find my blue socks.

4. to discover or perceive after consideration: to find something to be true.

5. to gain or regain the use of: His anger finally helped him find his tongue.

6. to ascertain by study or calculation: to find the sum of several numbers.

7. to feel or perceive: He finds it so.

8. to become aware of, or discover (oneself), as being in a condition or location: After a long illness, he found himself well again. She woke to find herself at home.

9. to discover: Columbus found America in 1492.

Well, there ya go then! Columbus both DISCOVERED and FOUND America and he didn't sign no steenkin' log!

Link to comment

There are many organizations across the globe where intolerance is actively encouraged. You might feel welcome there, but I do not. Unless you can show me a set of rules by which this game must be played, please refrain from imposing your values upon me.

Clan Riffster takes his car to the dealer to be repaired. The tie-rod is broken and needs to be replaced.

 

Mechanic: All fixed! Please pay the cashier.

CR: Uh, but it’s still broken, you didn’t fix anything!

Mechanic: You’re so intolerant!

 

It would be very intolerant to push your view of what "Fixed" means on someone else.

Link to comment

Don't you understand that both sides are imposing their view on the other? You are making the assumption that somehow taking the side of "Play how you want to play" is the higher moral ground. Just because I disagree with your perspective, you cast judgement upon me. THAT sounds pretty zealous to me.

Oh, really? Please show me, in any post from anybody, where the ones who have chosen to "play their way" have shown higer moral ground. Please, show me. 'Cuz I just don't see it.

 

I might even be willing to don my own Inquisitor's robes, take up my pitchfork & torch, and join the small minded zealots in their little witch hunt.

 

Good enough? "Small minded zealots"

Link to comment

Don't you understand that both sides are imposing their view on the other? You are making the assumption that somehow taking the side of "Play how you want to play" is the higher moral ground. Just because I disagree with your perspective, you cast judgement upon me. THAT sounds pretty zealous to me.

Oh, really? Please show me, in any post from anybody, where the ones who have chosen to "play their way" have shown higer moral ground. Please, show me. 'Cuz I just don't see it.

 

I might even be willing to don my own Inquisitor's robes, take up my pitchfork & torch, and join the small minded zealots in their little witch hunt.

 

Good enough? "Small minded zealots"

Not sure but I think he was alluding to the other side of the debate with that term. :rolleyes:

Link to comment

Don't you understand that both sides are imposing their view on the other? You are making the assumption that somehow taking the side of "Play how you want to play" is the higher moral ground. Just because I disagree with your perspective, you cast judgement upon me. THAT sounds pretty zealous to me.

Oh, really? Please show me, in any post from anybody, where the ones who have chosen to "play their way" have shown higer moral ground. Please, show me. 'Cuz I just don't see it.

 

I might even be willing to don my own Inquisitor's robes, take up my pitchfork & torch, and join the small minded zealots in their little witch hunt.

 

Good enough? "Small minded zealots"

Not sure but I think he was alluding to the other side of the debate with that term. :rolleyes:

 

Isn't that the point? He's calling the other side of the debate "Small minded zealots".. He asked for an example of the "Play their way" people showing higher moral ground. Calling the opposing side "Small minded zealots" certainly appears to show higher moral ground, does it not?

Link to comment

Don't you understand that both sides are imposing their view on the other? You are making the assumption that somehow taking the side of "Play how you want to play" is the higher moral ground. Just because I disagree with your perspective, you cast judgement upon me. THAT sounds pretty zealous to me.

Oh, really? Please show me, in any post from anybody, where the ones who have chosen to "play their way" have shown higer moral ground. Please, show me. 'Cuz I just don't see it.

 

Well so far in this thread those who disagree with the anything goes crowd have been painted as zealots, small minded, persecutors and closed minded. Apparently the anything goes folk don't exactly look up to those who disagree with them.

 

I think the most resounding answer, (at least in this thread), is that the smiley represents a reward. It can be a reward for locating a container, a reward for opening said container or a reward for effort expended upon the hunt for the container, depending on the beliefs of the cache owner and finder

 

A reward, that's an interesting perspective. It's kind of a hollow reward though don't you think? When I was a kid and did something good I was rewarded with dessert, usually ice cream. That tasted really good. When I performed well at my job I was rewarded with a bonus. The extra money came in handy. When my softball team won the championship we were rewarded with a thousand bucks and a trophy. The money paid for a party and the trophy looks good on the mantel. The rewards I've received in life have had a real benefit. Outside the opportunity to artifically inflate your find count, exactly what benefit does the reward of a smiley bring?

Link to comment
Well so far in this thread those who disagree with the anything goes crowd have been painted as zealots, small minded, persecutors and closed minded.

And anyone who plays a different game than what is commonly accepted are painted as liars, cheaters and posters of bogus logs. I fail to see where one insult is OK, whilst the other is not. You string up whoever you want, and I'll likely reciprocate in kind. Playing the wounded victim because you got insulted, after insulting someone else, kinda smells of hypocrisy.

 

A reward, that's an interesting perspective. It's kind of a hollow reward though don't you think? Outside the opportunity to artifically inflate your find count, exactly what benefit does the reward of a smiley bring?

I guess you'd need to field that question to those who choose to log a missing cache as found. Since I don't even consider a located, unopened cache as a "find", I would be unable to determine if the reward was hollow or not. My own definition of a "Find" is to locate a cache, open the cache, sign the log, trade if so inclined, close the cache, replace the cache as well or better than I found it, then jump through whatever ALR hoops may be present. Anything else is not a "find" to me, and rates either a "Note" or a "DNF". In this, I feel my own standard, applied only to myself, is fairly inflexible. Rigid, if you will, and I accept whatever consequences my actions bring upon myself. What I will not do is try to impose my rather intolerant standards upon others. If Groundspeak ever elects to define what does, and what does not constitute a "Find", then I may embrace the attitude of belittling those who play differently than I do.

Link to comment
the anything goes folk

 

Since apparently my 'Don't claim the cache if you didn't find it' take on things is an extremist attitude may I suggest the term, ‘Hedonist’ for those who log caches that are missing?

 

It is interesting how those who believe in the traditional definition of a find are now the extremists.

Link to comment

Don't you understand that both sides are imposing their view on the other? You are making the assumption that somehow taking the side of "Play how you want to play" is the higher moral ground. Just because I disagree with your perspective, you cast judgement upon me. THAT sounds pretty zealous to me.

Oh, really? Please show me, in any post from anybody, where the ones who have chosen to "play their way" have shown higer moral ground. Please, show me. 'Cuz I just don't see it.

 

Well so far in this thread those who disagree with the anything goes crowd have been painted as zealots, small minded, persecutors and closed minded. Apparently the anything goes folk don't exactly look up to those who disagree with them.

 

I think the most resounding answer, (at least in this thread), is that the smiley represents a reward. It can be a reward for locating a container, a reward for opening said container or a reward for effort expended upon the hunt for the container, depending on the beliefs of the cache owner and finder

 

A reward, that's an interesting perspective. It's kind of a hollow reward though don't you think? When I was a kid and did something good I was rewarded with dessert, usually ice cream. That tasted really good. When I performed well at my job I was rewarded with a bonus. The extra money came in handy. When my softball team won the championship we were rewarded with a thousand bucks and a trophy. The money paid for a party and the trophy looks good on the mantel. The rewards I've received in life have had a real benefit. Outside the opportunity to artifically inflate your find count, exactly what benefit does the reward of a smiley bring?

 

I think I agree with everything in that post.

Link to comment

I have logged finds when i did not sign the log, but I DID find the cache, only reason why i did not signed the log, is because of 1. the log has been destoried, waterlogged, or full 2. it was imposible to sign it due to unreasonable conditions (for instance hanging on underneath a foot bridge, with the creek that this said footbridge was flooded! so otherwise impossible to actually sign the log) 3. i'm retarded and forgot a pen and its a 1.5 miles back to the car

 

Those are pretty much the reason why

Link to comment

Amen, again. I think the critical issue in this debate is, 'What is a find'. Who gets to answer that question?

 

How about dictionary.com:

find:

1. to come upon by chance; meet with: He found a nickel in the street.

2. to locate, attain, or obtain by search or effort: to find an apartment; to find happiness.

3. to locate or recover (something lost or misplaced): I can't find my blue socks.

4. to discover or perceive after consideration: to find something to be true.

5. to gain or regain the use of: His anger finally helped him find his tongue.

6. to ascertain by study or calculation: to find the sum of several numbers.

7. to feel or perceive: He finds it so.

8. to become aware of, or discover (oneself), as being in a condition or location: After a long illness, he found himself well again. She woke to find herself at home.

9. to discover: Columbus found America in 1492.

Well, there ya go then! Columbus both DISCOVERED and FOUND America and he didn't sign no steenkin' log!

 

Once again, this thread is about logging a find on a cache that is NOT THERE or NOT FOUND. It's not about signing or not signing logs, broken caches, cache container pieces, etc. America WAS there for Columbus to discover, and he correctly logged his find with the queen. He got much more than a smiley for it, too. It would have been a much different story had Columbus not discovered America, but gone back to the queen and claimed that he found a new country anyway. Of course, that wouldn't have made him a liar, and he wouldn't have been dishonest -- that would be an intolerant viewpoint to hold, wouldn't it? He'd have simply been discovering new countries "his way", and that should have been just peachy with everyone, including the queen. If the queen argued that he didn't find anything and asked why he claimed he did, she'd be told to shut up and take her pitchfork & torch carrying Purist views elsewhere and stop imposing them on him. After all, what HE chooses to believe is true is all that really matters, and it doesn't affect anyone else anyway.

Link to comment
America WAS there for Columbus to discover, and he correctly logged his find with the queen.

Are you sure about that? I thought he was searching for a new trade route to the Indies.

From Wikipedia:

Columbus' voyages across the Atlantic Ocean began a European effort at exploration and colonization of the Western Hemisphere. While history places great significance on his first voyage of 1492, he did not actually reach the mainland until his third voyage in 1498. Likewise, he was not the earliest European explorer to reach the Americas, as there are accounts of European transatlantic contact prior to 1492.

That seems to jive with what I learned in Elementary School. I reckon Columbus was a liar. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
It is interesting how those who believe in the traditional definition of a find are now the extremists.

Does that make me an extremist? I've never been an extremist before. :unsure: Or would I need to push my agenda on others to bear that title? :rolleyes:

 

*

 

The Extremist say you can't. The Puritans say you shouldn't. The Traditionalists just state the current practice. The Hedonists ask ‘what’s the problem?’

 

*(Definition subject to change)

Edited by BlueDeuce
Link to comment

Amen, again. I think the critical issue in this debate is, 'What is a find'. Who gets to answer that question?

 

How about dictionary.com:

find:

1. to come upon by chance; meet with: He found a nickel in the street.

2. to locate, attain, or obtain by search or effort: to find an apartment; to find happiness.

3. to locate or recover (something lost or misplaced): I can't find my blue socks.

4. to discover or perceive after consideration: to find something to be true.

5. to gain or regain the use of: His anger finally helped him find his tongue.

6. to ascertain by study or calculation: to find the sum of several numbers.

7. to feel or perceive: He finds it so.

8. to become aware of, or discover (oneself), as being in a condition or location: After a long illness, he found himself well again. She woke to find herself at home.

9. to discover: Columbus found America in 1492.

Well, there ya go then! Columbus both DISCOVERED and FOUND America and he didn't sign no steenkin' log!

 

Once again, this thread is about logging a find on a cache that is NOT THERE or NOT FOUND. It's not about signing or not signing logs, broken caches, cache container pieces, etc. America WAS there for Columbus to discover, and he correctly logged his find with the queen. He got much more than a smiley for it, too. It would have been a much different story had Columbus not discovered America, but gone back to the queen and claimed that he found a new country anyway. Of course, that wouldn't have made him a liar, and he wouldn't have been dishonest -- that would be an intolerant viewpoint to hold, wouldn't it? He'd have simply been discovering new countries "his way", and that should have been just peachy with everyone, including the queen. If the queen argued that he didn't find anything and asked why he claimed he did, she'd be told to shut up and take her pitchfork & torch carrying Purist views elsewhere and stop imposing them on him. After all, what HE chooses to believe is true is all that really matters, and it doesn't affect anyone else anyway.

Wow, tensions are running pretty high around here when an attempt at levity is met with stern rebuttal!

 

It's a GAME folks, lighten up!

Link to comment

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!

 

I just wanted to add my two cents.

 

+ $0.02

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"?

 

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

 

2. No.

 

3. I don't police cache logs. If somebody wants to cheat my cache, that's their problem.

Edited by Quest Master
Link to comment

Wow, tensions are running pretty high around here when an attempt at levity is met with stern rebuttal!

 

It's a GAME folks, lighten up!

 

Sorry, I've been beat on kinda hard today for my unpopular opinion by those more tolerant and open-minded than I, so I guess I'm a little on edge. B)

Link to comment

Amen, again. I think the critical issue in this debate is, 'What is a find'. Who gets to answer that question?

 

How about dictionary.com:

find:

1. to come upon by chance; meet with: He found a nickel in the street.

2. to locate, attain, or obtain by search or effort: to find an apartment; to find happiness.

3. to locate or recover (something lost or misplaced): I can't find my blue socks.

4. to discover or perceive after consideration: to find something to be true.

5. to gain or regain the use of: His anger finally helped him find his tongue.

6. to ascertain by study or calculation: to find the sum of several numbers.

7. to feel or perceive: He finds it so.

8. to become aware of, or discover (oneself), as being in a condition or location: After a long illness, he found himself well again. She woke to find herself at home.

9. to discover: Columbus found America in 1492.

Well, there ya go then! Columbus both DISCOVERED and FOUND America and he didn't sign no steenkin' log!

 

Yes, but did he post it online? B)

Link to comment

My own definition of a "Find" is to locate a cache, open the cache, sign the log, trade if so inclined, close the cache, replace the cache as well or better than I found it, then jump through whatever ALR hoops may be present. Anything else is not a "find" to me, and rates either a "Note" or a "DNF". In this, I feel my own standard, applied only to myself, is fairly inflexible. Rigid, if you will, and I accept whatever consequences my actions bring upon myself. What I will not do is try to impose my rather intolerant standards upon others.

 

Welcome brother Riffster. It's good to know there are more of us here in the "Reformists" Traditionalists. B)

 

Edit: New definitions included

Edited by Totem Clan
Link to comment
the anything goes folk

 

Since apparently my 'Don't claim the cache if you didn't find it' take on things is an extremist attitude may I suggest the term, ‘Hedonist’ for those who log caches that are missing?

I suggested Pagan, but either will work. I say they chose the title. B)

Edited by Totem Clan
Link to comment
It is interesting how those who believe in the traditional definition of a find are now the extremists.

Does that make me an extremist? I've never been an extremist before. :POr would I need to push my agenda on others to bear that title? B)

Yes.

 

You can't be a "Puritan" without doing that. You are firmly in the group of Reformed Traditionalists Cachers. You are a "Reformist" Traditionalists. You hold to a traditional definition of a find you just don't push it on others.

 

Edit: New definitions included

Edited by Totem Clan
Link to comment
It is interesting how those who believe in the traditional definition of a find are now the extremists.

Does that make me an extremist? I've never been an extremist before. :P Or would I need to push my agenda on others to bear that title? B)

 

*

 

The Extremist say you can't. The Puritans say you shouldn't. The Traditionalists just state the current practice. The Hedonists ask ‘what’s the problem?’

 

*(Definition subject to change)

I bow to your definitons.

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.

Link to comment

For my part I apologize if in my, probably ill-conceived, attempt at levity I offended anyone. I was trying to get people to see that the best approach may be the middle ground.

 

As far as the topic of the thread, I would never log a "find" on a cache that I didn't physical find, even if offered to by the owner. The reason I wouldn't is that my find count is how I keep track of my unique finds. I will log my finds, by my high standards, because that is how I believe it should be done. If you want to log it some other way, as long as you are not hurting the game for others, more power to you.

 

I think we could all do from a good dose of tolerance no matter which side of the fence you stand on. The same us true for those of us in the middle.

 

Again, if anything I have said has offended anyone, I apologize. I guess that was a poor excuse and a poor attempt at humor.

Link to comment

I don't think that I have any 'unfound' finds, but I don't always hold others to that standard. I own a virt that can be difficult to find. It is difficult, if not impossible, to get good sat reception at the location. Combined with this, I don't tell searchers exactly what they are looking for. To top it off, the virt is in a location that charges you over $60 per person to get to.

 

People, on occasion, feel pretty confident that they have located the object and sent me a verification email. If I know that they were close by, I explain what the actual object is and give them the option to log it as a find, since they did go to the location. Most people who are offered this option, take it.

Link to comment

I think a reason people log Finds on MIAs in some cases is so they don't have to go back through the hassle of getting to the cache location again.

 

I've read some people say things like, "Why should I have to go all the way back out there just to sign the log book after it's replaced. I was there already."

 

This is different from the reason of "Because the owner said it was okay".

Link to comment

I think of several "possible" reasons that some people would log a find on a cache that wasn't physically present:

1) They put a lot of effort into looking for it and feel that they deserve credit.

2) They want a smiley and to them geocaching is like horseshoes and hand-grenades and they think that they got close enough to the cache location log a find.

3) The owner allows them to log a find so they do it.

4) They want the cache off their radar. If they log a DNF it still shows up in their PQs and they don't want to ignore it.

5) Their friend or someone else logged it when it was missing so they should be able to log it too.

6) They didn't think it was a big deal.

7) They didn't think anyone would notice.

8) They don't want to go back again.

Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment
I think a reason people log Finds on MIAs in some cases is so they don't have to go back through the hassle of getting to the cache location again.

 

I've read some people say things like, "Why should I have to go all the way back out there just to sign the log book after it's replaced. I was there already."

 

This is different from the reason of "Because the owner said it was okay".

I certainly agree. Of course, without owner approval, the issue wouldn't hardly exist.
Link to comment

I think of several "possible" reasons that some people would log a find on a cache that wasn't physically present:

1) They put a lot of effort into looking for it and feel that they deserve credit.

2) They want a smiley and to them geocaching is like horseshoes and hand-grenades and they think that they got close enough to the cache location log a find.

3) The owner allows them to log a find so they do it.

4) They want the cache off their radar. If they log a DNF it still shows up in their PQs and they don't want to ignore it.

5) Their friend or someone else logged it when it was missing so they should be able to log it too.

6) They didn't think it was a big deal.

7) They didn't think anyone would notice.

8) They don't want to go back again.

 

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. B)

Link to comment

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. B)

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.

Link to comment
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.
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...