Why do you log finds on caches that are MIA?

[+Totem Clan]

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.

I have to agree with you as to what is a find and what is Geocaching. What I don't understand with some folks on both sides of this is why they feel they must force their opinion on the other side. Would someone please answer this question.

 

As long as the hider and the seeker are not doing anything that affects anyone but them, what difference does it make to anyone else?

[Clan Riffster]

What I don't understand with some folks on both sides of this is why they feel they must force their opinion on the other side.

I see two sides to this issue:

1) A general standard exists, (even if it's not a "rule"), and players should abide by that standard

2) A find is whatever an owner & seeker agree upon.

 

Of those two sides, I only see one doing any forcing.

[+Totem Clan]

What I don't understand with some folks on both sides of this is why they feel they must force their opinion on the other side.

I see two sides to this issue:

1) A general standard exists, (even if it's not a "rule"), and players should abide by that standard

2) A find is whatever an owner & seeker agree upon.

 

Of those two sides, I only see one doing any forcing.

Can I add a third?

 

3) A general standard exists, (even if it's not a "rule"), and I will abide by that standard, but for others a find is whatever an owner & seeker agree upon and I won't begrudge them that if they are not affecting others.

 

Edit to add: In the past few days, on this thread and others like it, I have seen name calling and forceful attitudes from both sides, but for the most part your observation is a good one.

Edited March 17, 2007 by Totem Clan

[+TrailGators]

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.

So there is a gray area when a cache has been missing for a short duration of time that permits cache owners to allow finders to log a virtual find. This is the loophole. Edited March 17, 2007 by TrailGators

[+tomfuller & Quill]

Staying on topic... Did this once and only once. The circumstances: Went to an event cache/picnic along a river, the event host had a cache about a half-mile upstream that had not been found recently, another cacher and I went to find the cache, GZ was on a tall rock island with a logjam on the upstream side, we used the logjam to access the vegetated top of the rock, we searched the top and the sides that would not require rappelling. We CITO'd out 2 beer bottles and reported the cache MIA to the owner. The owner took a new cache container and waded out and replaced the cache and logbook. The cache owner wrote our names first in the logbook and told us both to log it as a find since our names were in the new logbook. I wasn't about to argue. I would gladly have filed a DNF if the cache owner had asked me to wade out again to find the new hide, that river was cold. I think I have it justified in my mind since the cache was back in place before I logged the find online and my name is in the logbook.

[+tozainamboku]

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.

So there is a gray area when a cache has been missing for a short duration of time that permits cache owners to allow finders to log a virtual find.

I don't think that is what Keystone means. The guidelines for reviewers are basically about what can be listed and when a listing can be archived by a reviewer. A listing can be archived if a cache owner fails to maintain their cache. One way to fail to maintain a cache is to say, "I don't have time to replace it now so instead of temporarily disabling the cache you can log a find if you mail me the third word on the second line of the sign next to the area where the cache was hidden". Another maintenance guideline is for owners to "Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements." As far as I know the volunteer reviewers do not archive caches when the owners fail to maintain the online logs for their cache. I have seen Groundspeak archive caches for violations of this rule. However it is done for only the most egregious violations. For the most part a cache owner can allow a find as a courtesy to a cacher who would have found the cache had it been there, much like a group of golfers allow a mulligan if some has a bad shot or looses a ball.

 

What I don't understand with some folks on both sides of this is why they feel they must force their opinion on the other side.

I see two sides to this issue:

1) A general standard exists, (even if it's not a "rule"), and players should abide by that standard

2) A find is whatever an owner & seeker agree upon.

 

Of those two sides, I only see one doing any forcing.

Can I add a third?

 

3) A general standard exists, (even if it's not a "rule"), and I will abide by that standard, but for others a find is whatever an owner & seeker agree upon and I won't begrudge them that if they are not affecting others.

 

Edit to add: In the past few days, on this thread and others like it, I have seen name calling and forceful attitudes from both sides, but for the most part your observation is a good one.

I'm considering starting a thread on "Why puritans are seen as being on a witch hunt" to help both sides listen to what the other is saying but I'm not sure that might just have the opposite effect. There are three parts to the puritan argument and unless you understand each they will sound like they are being hyper-critical of anyone who practices some other cache logging practice. In fact, nearly everyone on the puritan side is simply expressing their belief as to how and when the Found It log type should be used.

1. What does it mean to "find" a cache?
   The most extreme puritans claim that you must sign the log. This is another debate in itself. In this thread signing the log isn't important. We can look a the most liberal puritan view that you must have found something that can be identified as actually being the cache. Finding a spot that was the right size or finding a piece of velcro that may have been used to attach the cache is not finding a cache. Very few, if any, are arguing against this definition.
   
2. When can you use the "Found It" online log?
   Puritans say that the 'Found It' should only be used if you found the cache per (1). Anything else is an abuse of the system. Non-puritans argue that the 'Found It' log can be used for anything agreed upon between the cache owner and the person who logs the 'Found It'. Groundspeak has given the responsibility of online log maintenance to the cache owner. In doing so they have established a defacto system where cache owners can decide that a 'Found It' can be awarded for something besides finding a cache. Jeremy and others have indicated a personal dislike for using the 'Found It' log in this way. Yet they have done nothing to change the system of the owners having this responsibility. The only cases I've seen Groundspeak take action is when a owner has deleted someones log that was legitimate and Groundspeak has archived the cache and lock the page and the cases of some of th Pocket Caches at Geowoodstock last year.
   
3. Why would someone use the 'Found It' log if they didn't find the cache?
   The puritans say that those who think the 'Found It' log is a reward given by the cache owner instead of a tally of the caches you actually found must be viewing the numbers as having a value. The higher your number the better you are. Thus it is not the puritans who are obsessed by numbers, but rather the puritans see anyone who disagrees with them as being obsessed with the numbers. Many puritans take this a step farther, saying that people who believe that numbers are important then cheat and lie to increase their numbers. Some puritans simply object to the "false" numbers of those with questionable logs because that means the number no longer mean what they're "supposed" to mean. The puritans, who probably don't really care about any body's numbers other than their own, come across as being obsessed with other peoples numbers. I think they should stop speculating about why people log a Found It when they didn't find the cache. This is what is making them look bad. On the other hand, if those that have posted a 'Found It' for a MIA cache would stay on topic and answer the OP questions perhaps you can convince a puritan that your reason for doing this was not evil. (I doubt you'll convince any puritan that you should log an MIA cache because of (1) and (2).)
   

[+TrailGators]

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.

So there is a gray area when a cache has been missing for a short duration of time that permits cache owners to allow finders to log a virtual find.

I don't think that is what Keystone means. The guidelines for reviewers are basically about what can be listed and when a listing can be archived by a reviewer. A listing can be archived if a cache owner fails to maintain their cache. One way to fail to maintain a cache is to say, "I don't have time to replace it now so instead of temporarily disabling the cache you can log a find if you mail me the third word on the second line of the sign next to the area where the cache was hidden". Another maintenance guideline is for owners to "Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements." As far as I know the volunteer reviewers do not archive caches when the owners fail to maintain the online logs for their cache. I have seen Groundspeak archive caches for violations of this rule. However it is done for only the most egregious violations. For the most part a cache owner can allow a find as a courtesy to a cacher who would have found the cache had it been there, much like a group of golfers allow a mulligan if some has a bad shot or looses a ball.

Keystone basically admitted that this would not violate the guidlelines (in bold). I understand the guidelines for maintaining caches. What's the difference between what I said in bold and what you said in bold? Edited March 17, 2007 by TrailGators

[+BlueDeuce]

Puritan Beliefs: 1,2,3.

 

I would like to point out that you didn't capitalize the P in Puritan in every reference; otherwise your synopsis is fair, not perfect, but fair.

[+briansnat]

I have to agree with you as to what is a find and what is Geocaching. What I don't understand with some folks on both sides of this is why they feel they must force their opinion on the other side. Would someone please answer this question.

 

I'll take that. This is a forum where we discuss geocaching and share our opinions regarding many aspects of the sport. The opinions are not being "forced" on anyone. You don't have to read them if you don't want to.

[+tozainamboku]

Keystone basically admitted that this would not violate the guidlelines (in bold). I understand the guidelines for maintaining caches. What's the difference between what I said in bold and what you said in bold?

Once upon a time cache owners could change the type of their cache after it was approved. It became quite common for geocachers to change a cache to type Virtual if the container went missing. This resulted in a the change to the website to disallow the ability to change the type of a cache once it is published. Yet people continue to try this. If a cache owner is changing their cache to a virtual when it goes missing, it is in violation of the maintenance guidelines. If your cache is missing and you can't replace it immediately you should make it temporarily unavailable until you can replace it. You shouldn't change the cache page to say "Until I replace the cache you can log it as a virtual". I believe Keystones post indicates that caches the do this will be archived.

 

On the other hand we have two case that Geocaching.com would probably allow (i.e. the cache would not be archived if the owner did this). First if someone went looking for the cache before the owner disabled it (or perhaps before they notice that cache was disabled), and the owner wants as a courtesy to allow they to log a Found It, that would be allowed. Second, the owner could temporarily disable there cache but post a note that if some gets out there before he has a chance to replace the cache with a replacement cache they can claim a find on that replacement. I personally don't think the second one is a good idea, but another cache owner may not have any problem in having someone who hasn't found his cache hide a replacement.

[+pghlooking]

OK lets try this again. I choose not to log caches that aren't there. That is because there wasn't anything that I found so saying "Found It" seems like a lie to me. Mainly it is myself I am fooling, or at least think I am. I really hope I am not so easily fooled that a fool as myself can fool myself by claiming to have found something at home sitting at the comptuer when 3 hours ago I was cursing the hider because I couldn't find it. Now I really feel like a fool. Either way I have not been posting in this thread much because I don't log caches like this. But to understand people better I am asking why they do log caches like this. I am seeing a lot of debate and off topic antics typical of most threads, so maybe I fooled myself...again...But I am hoping to see why people do this. What are their reasons? Why would you log it different than physically occured. I would go out on a limb to say the posts in this thread should mostly be from people who do this or have done this, not people against it since they can't answer why they do something when they don't do it. Maybe with a little help we can stray back towards the goal which was trying to understand why this is a common practice for some. So how about it. Why do you log these caches this way?

[+tozainamboku]

Puritan Beliefs: 1,2,3.

 

I would like to point out that you didn't capitalize the P in Puritan in every reference; otherwise your synopsis is fair, not perfect, but fair.

I always use puritan without the capital p when referring to geocaching puritans. I do not want to confuse geocaching puritans with the religious movement - although I do want to make the comparison. I will admit that my use of the word puritan is partly responsible for the image of geocaching puritans and witch-hunters or as fire-and-brimstone "you're all going to hell" preachers. My use of the term is a reference to being overly concerned with adherence to rules and perhaps a little to Puritans view that if people were having fun they must be sinning.

[+BlueDeuce]

Puritan Beliefs: 1,2,3.

 

I would like to point out that you didn't capitalize the P in Puritan in every reference; otherwise your synopsis is fair, not perfect, but fair.

 

uh, I hope you understand that I mean fair as in

 

not exhibiting any bias, and therefore reasonable or impartial.

 

not

 

no more than acceptable or average.

[+briansnat]

Of those two sides, I only see one doing any forcing.

 

Really? Which one? I don't recall any of the anything goes gang forcing me to log phony finds. Nor do I recall me, Criminal or anyone else forcibly preventing phony cachc logs.

 

We're simply stating our opinion of the practice and some people don't like it. To paraphrase Harry Truman, we don't give 'em hell, we tell it like it is and they think its hell.

[+BlueDeuce]

Puritan Beliefs: 1,2,3.

 

I would like to point out that you didn't capitalize the P in Puritan in every reference; otherwise your synopsis is fair, not perfect, but fair.

I always use puritan without the capital p when referring to geocaching puritans. I do not want to confuse geocaching puritans with the religious movement - although I do want to make the comparison. I will admit that my use of the word puritan is partly responsible for the image of geocaching puritans and witch-hunters or as fire-and-brimstone "you're all going to hell" preachers. My use of the term is a reference to being overly concerned with adherence to rules and perhaps a little to Puritans view that if people were having fun they must be sinning.

 

That's cool. My geocaching hat has a big belt buckle on it.

[+TrailGators]

Keystone basically admitted that this would not violate the guidlelines (in bold). I understand the guidelines for maintaining caches. What's the difference between what I said in bold and what you said in bold?

Once upon a time cache owners could change the type of their cache after it was approved. It became quite common for geocachers to change a cache to type Virtual if the container went missing. This resulted in a the change to the website to disallow the ability to change the type of a cache once it is published. Yet people continue to try this. If a cache owner is changing their cache to a virtual when it goes missing, it is in violation of the maintenance guidelines. If your cache is missing and you can't replace it immediately you should make it temporarily unavailable until you can replace it. You shouldn't change the cache page to say "Until I replace the cache you can log it as a virtual". I believe Keystones post indicates that caches the do this will be archived.

 

On the other hand we have two case that Geocaching.com would probably allow (i.e. the cache would not be archived if the owner did this). First if someone went looking for the cache before the owner disabled it (or perhaps before they notice that cache was disabled), and the owner wants as a courtesy to allow they to log a Found It, that would be allowed. Second, the owner could temporarily disable there cache but post a note that if some gets out there before he has a chance to replace the cache with a replacement cache they can claim a find on that replacement. I personally don't think the second one is a good idea, but another cache owner may not have any problem in having someone who hasn't found his cache hide a replacement.

I understand all this. I just didn't know that people would be allowed to log a cache that was missing for even a "short duration of time" (I said that in my first post). I won't do it because a smiley is not that important to me and I always try to be honest.

 

Edit: By the have you noticed that the definition of puritan has drastically changed over the years? Now a puritan is one that tells the truth? "Say it ain't so, Joe!"

Edited March 17, 2007 by TrailGators

[+chuckwagon101]

I STILL say it's the missing SWAG that causes a cacher to "cash in" on the smilie!!

 

Without the soothing touch of a plush McToy, how else is a cacher to get through the "shakes" of

not finding that cache????

 

And don't try to tell me that a DNF would ward off the "heebie jeebies" just as good as a smilie!

 

Nope! Don't tell me that! Ain't gonna listen!!!

[+Totem Clan]

I have to agree with you as to what is a find and what is Geocaching. What I don't understand with some folks on both sides of this is why they feel they must force their opinion on the other side. Would someone please answer this question.

 

I'll take that. This is a forum where we discuss geocaching and share our opinions regarding many aspects of the sport. The opinions are not being "forced" on anyone. You don't have to read them if you don't want to.

OK, I'll accept that as a good answer. I have no problem understanding what you have said here. I have always seen these forums as a place to discuss and debate various aspects of goecaching, but some seem to take it much too personally.