Cache destroyed- Found or DNF?

[+geomann1]

A lot of people are quite anal here; what difference does it really make, whether you sign the log or not?.

 

If you can positively identify the cache as the cache, then you found it. Correct me if I am wrong, but the logging option is "Found it", not "Signed the Log Book".

 

Signing the log is irrelevant.

[CoyoteRed]

Signing the log is irrelevant.

If it ever comes to my attention you claim a find on one of our caches and you've not signed the log, then you will be questioned. If you don't have a good excuse then the log gets deleted.

 

Of course, I could ask you, "What difference does it really make, whether you claim that find or not?"

 

It's not about being anal. It's about drawing a line. This very thread is questioning in so many words "just how destroyed does a cache have to be before I can't claim a find." To head off any of a multitude of various, similar questions the answer is always "sign the log." There's already a "what if" when the logbook is found to be un-signable and that is leave one of your own. Of course, some folks have stretched that to include not even finding the cache as leaving a while cache of your own and still claiming the find but that a slightly different scenario. You can play the "what if" game all day. When folks have differing concepts of "found" then each scenario could have a different outcome. But if there is one concept of "found" then the outcome is always the same and there is only test you need to apply--did I sign the log?

[+geomann1]

Signing the log is irrelevant.

If it ever comes to my attention you claim a find on one of our caches and you've not signed the log, then you will be questioned. If you don't have a good excuse then the log gets deleted.

 

Of course, I could ask you, "What difference does it really make, whether you claim that find or not?"

 

It's not about being anal. It's about drawing a line. This very thread is questioning in so many words "just how destroyed does a cache have to be before I can't claim a find." To head off any of a multitude of various, similar questions the answer is always "sign the log." There's already a "what if" when the logbook is found to be un-signable and that is leave one of your own. Of course, some folks have stretched that to include not even finding the cache as leaving a while cache of your own and still claiming the find but that a slightly different scenario. You can play the "what if" game all day. When folks have differing concepts of "found" then each scenario could have a different outcome. But if there is one concept of "found" then the outcome is always the same and there is only test you need to apply--did I sign the log?

 

I just take a different attitude towards the sport. My caches are placed purely so people can have some fun and to support the sport. I would never dream of ever questioning someone's claim to a find, much less to delete someones log (unless of course it is a spoiler). It would also never occur to me to feel the need to cross-check the logged finds against the log book. Its just bad form to suggest that someone is lying, and particularly to raise the issue over something as intrinsically unimportant as whether one found a cache.

 

I sense in many threads an unwillingness of people to just relax and enjoy ones participation in the sport. Instead there is this current of obsession and cynicism over what the other cachers are doing and whether or not they may be "cheating" and inflating their "score". Personally, I cannot fathom why anyone would cheat (especially when one is not competing against anyone else), but as a sometimes golfer, I know that a lot of people are pathetic enough that they will cheat, even when they are playing against themselves. But so what? How does that impact ones enjoyment of going out a finding a cache?

 

For what its worth, my personal yardstick is that if I positively locate the cache and can touch it, then it is found. I also almost always sign the log, but there were several times when I declined for the safety of the cache. There were muggles around and physically removing, opening, and replacing the cache may have given away its location, so I made the decision to retreat, but still logged it as a find, as I did in fact find it. It is just not that important (and no fun) to come back another day just to sign a logbook. If someone objects to my policy, please let me know and I will avoid your caches so you can sleep well at night.

[Clan Riffster]

I guess I have a double standard with regards to logging practices. For myself, I'm fairly rigid. If I don't sign the log, I won't claim a find. However, out of my 40+ hides, only one requires a signature in the logbook according to my cache page. I just don't see the need to impose my arbitrary "rules" on other people. I play my way because that's what's fun for me. I accept that others have a different way of playing. In the end, it's all good.....unless it's a film canister!

[+RenoGem & RenoStar]

WOW! I didn't mean to stir up such a debate. First, we logged it a DNF and notified the owner. The cahe is now disabled. Second, in Neveda I'd say about 10% of the caches hidden are under sagebrush. The fire wiped out a few acres. If you burn away the sagebrush and the tumbleweeds you get a giant sadbox with small charred stubs. There's no doubt the plastic was the cache since there is nothing for miles around and the pile of plastic was within inches of a sage stub and Ground Zero coordinates. If you can believe this, there are actully places in Nevada that have NO trash such as pop bottles, old batteries, and happy meal remains. Honestly, sealed in the melted plastic was the Geocache logo from the Cache Letter, again, NO mistaking the remains.

 

After logging the cache I was reading the forums and found a thread about caches that had been destroyed by construction equipment. In the links to these caches I found some were DNF and some were not. So I was curious as to what people thought about how to log a fire. Note: I've already logged it as DNF, so it must NOT be about the numbers.

 

But in reading responses to my question I have come up with a few other questions. 1) if the "official rules of geocaching" state that something must be traded in order for it to be an official find (according to a post by Bunya on 6-4-07) then how do micro-log and virtual caches qualify as caches and in the case of letterboxes, if you are only leaving something and not truly taking anything then where do these fall in the cache scheme? 2) On several occasions we have encountered caches that have been depleted of "quality items" and are nothing more than ammo cans filled with business cards and very inexpensive stickers. In these cases, WE have chosen to deposit a good deal of "higher end" swag to replenish an older, ailing cache and have taken nothing. Can we now not count these as a true cache find?

[CoyoteRed]

I also almost always sign the log, but there were several times when I declined for the safety of the cache. There were muggles around and physically removing, opening, and replacing the cache may have given away its location, so I made the decision to retreat, but still logged it as a find, as I did in fact find it.

What you just described is quite possibly a cache termed "high risk" and the whole point of it is the challenge of "physically removing, opening, and replacing" the cache without getting caught. So, you just blatantly admit you cheat.

 

There are plenty of caches where the challenge doesn't end at the cache location. I've got more than one in a tree. Would you claim a find because you just stood under it? From what you're saying you probably would.

 

It is just not that important (and no fun) to come back another day just to sign a logbook.

So, it's not that important, but it's important enough falsify a log, to claim a find when you did not?

 

If someone objects to my policy, please let me know and I will avoid your caches so you can sleep well at night.

You are so notified. But don't let that get in your way as a lot of folks think the same way I do. You might want to ask everyone what their policy is before you hunt their caches lest you run afoul of their policies, too.

 

Again, I'm wondering why it's so important to claim the find when you did not. Is part of your "fun" the selection of "Found It" in that drop down box? It's less fun to select "Didn't Find It?" Never mind the experience is the same. Heck the log text is the same. Is that smilie that important to you?

[Clan Riffster]

how do micro-log and virtual caches qualify as caches

Brother, I've been asking this question for two years, but that's a debate best saved for another thread.

[Clan Riffster]

What you just described is quite possibly a cache termed "high risk" and the whole point of it is the challenge of "physically removing, opening, and replacing" the cache without getting caught. So, you just blatantly admit you cheat.

I don't think what he's doing truly constitutes cheating, or lying, or any of the other moral silliness. He's got his own definition of a Find than you, and there is nothing in the guidelines even suggesting that your method is ethically superior to his. In a game without rules, it's kinda hard to define cheating.

[+ReadyOrNot]

What you just described is quite possibly a cache termed "high risk" and the whole point of it is the challenge of "physically removing, opening, and replacing" the cache without getting caught. So, you just blatantly admit you cheat.

I don't think what he's doing truly constitutes cheating, or lying, or any of the other moral silliness. He's got his own definition of a Find than you, and there is nothing in the guidelines even suggesting that your method is ethically superior to his. In a game without rules, it's kinda hard to define cheating.

 

Oh good, I get to use my tagline!

 

"We are moving toward a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one's own ego and one's own desires."

 

Definition of relativism:

A theory, especially in ethics or aesthetics, that conceptions of truth and moral values are not absolute but are relative to the persons or groups holding them.

[CoyoteRed]

What you just described is quite possibly a cache termed "high risk" and the whole point of it is the challenge of "physically removing, opening, and replacing" the cache without getting caught. So, you just blatantly admit you cheat.

I don't think what he's doing truly constitutes cheating, or lying, or any of the other moral silliness. He's got his own definition of a Find than you...

That's kind of obvious. Additionally, the definition is different than a lot of folks' and that of the community.

 

...and there is nothing in the guidelines even suggesting that your method is ethically superior to his. In a game without rules, it's kinda hard to define cheating.

The guidelines are for getting a cache published. I'm not sure why you would refer to it in relation to proper decorum. There is after all proper decorum in this hobby regardless to your assertion to a "game without rules." (Which it is not, BTW.)

 

The decorum of what constitutes a find has long been established. I've and others have already mentioned it. No, this decorum is not "handed down" by the operators of this site. It's been established by the community. Why do you think the "sign the logbook to qualify as a find" mantra even exists?

 

However, for those who only pay attention to those rules handed down from on high, I suppose trading kindly doesn't apply to you. After all, nowhere in the guidelines does it state you have to trade fairly, now does it? According to the guidelines trading a pine cone for a brand new LED Maglight is perfectly acceptable. Problem is try telling that to the cache owner.

 

Now, let's pretend you believe in "sign the logbook to qualify as a find" then the guidelines do request you delete logs "that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements." Sounds like I'm doing my job.

[+BlueDeuce]

I sense in many threads an unwillingness of people to just relax and enjoy ones participation in the sport.

 

I just love it when this card gets played.

[+geomann1]

I also almost always sign the log, but there were several times when I declined for the safety of the cache. There were muggles around and physically removing, opening, and replacing the cache may have given away its location, so I made the decision to retreat, but still logged it as a find, as I did in fact find it.

What you just described is quite possibly a cache termed "high risk" and the whole point of it is the challenge of "physically removing, opening, and replacing" the cache without getting caught. So, you just blatantly admit you cheat.

 

There are plenty of caches where the challenge doesn't end at the cache location. I've got more than one in a tree. Would you claim a find because you just stood under it? From what you're saying you probably would.

 

It is just not that important (and no fun) to come back another day just to sign a logbook.

So, it's not that important, but it's important enough falsify a log, to claim a find when you did not?

 

If someone objects to my policy, please let me know and I will avoid your caches so you can sleep well at night.

You are so notified. But don't let that get in your way as a lot of folks think the same way I do. You might want to ask everyone what their policy is before you hunt their caches lest you run afoul of their policies, too.

 

Again, I'm wondering why it's so important to claim the find when you did not. Is part of your "fun" the selection of "Found It" in that drop down box? It's less fun to select "Didn't Find It?" Never mind the experience is the same. Heck the log text is the same. Is that smilie that important to you?

 

Aren't we a bit sensitive???

 

First, I said that my criteria is confirming the cache is in fact the cache and physically touching it. So you comment about standing under a tree and claiming a find, is a wee bit silly.

 

Second, You should look up in the dictionary what the word "find" means. Mine says "to discover, come upon, and get by search", so to it is a bit of a logical jump to say "find" means signing a piece of paper. But the Fuerher says the log must be signed, and one must always obey orders!.

 

Third, what I do suggest is that a wee bit common sense is in order. There is no risk to me to expose a cache in a high muggle area, so your high risk comments makes no sense. To not expose a cache and avoid a potential muggling is an act a consideration to the cache owner, which by my twisted morals has higher value than scribbling my name on a sheet of paper, which appears to be all important to you. As I noted the only times that I did not sign a log, which I beliveve was only 3 times, was because I felt my continued presence at the site and fumbling with the cache container would compromise the cache, which would be a disservice to the cache owner. Actually, for the first 2 I did in fact note that I did not sign in my log.

 

Fourth, my logging a find is my personal way of keeping score. Since I cache on my own and am not competing with anyone, it is purely for my enjoyment. No one that I know will ever see my count, so the issue of a smiley is irrelevant. For the life of me, I cannot understand why anyone would give a damm about what I log and what my count is, or why I should take the least interest in who logs a smiley for any of my caches. I am only concerned that they have a good time and are safe. Why are you so different?

 

Fifth, So you can sleep at night, I will stay away from your caches (coincidentally I will be in your state next week on vacation).

 

Fortunately, the fellow cachers that I have met have all been nice, laid back people, so this issue over who logs what, and who will delete who's log, appears concern of a minor subset of the caching community. Most of the cachers I have met have also been rebels in one way or another, so this insistence on playing in strict accordance with one set of rules in a bit incongruous.

Edited June 9, 2007 by geomann1

[JohnE_Cache]

A lot of people are quite anal here; what difference does it really make, whether you sign the log or not?.

 

If you can positively identify the cache as the cache, then you found it. Correct me if I am wrong, but the logging option is "Found it", not "Signed the Log Book".

 

Signing the log is irrelevant.

 

No doubt, lol. Man, some of you need to relax. If someone hiked 10 miles to a cache, only to find a bear-shredded wuz-a-cache, and you're saying that doesn't count because **whips out 45 pound rulebook** Article 7 of Geocachers Act 19, lines 49-52 CLEARLY states blah blah blah..., lol...

 

Sheesh. Sure, we all try to log the find...but if some extraordinary Act of God causes that one, single cache out of many to be unsignable, despite FINDING the cache where is was hidden?

 

I'd log that cache in a heartbeat. If the case is made to cache owner and they don't want to credit you, especially if you can ID the scene? I sure wouldn't waste any more of my time on their caches.

 

I've had a situation where a cache was muggled hours before I went there...the owner said I could count it, though I declined since in that case I actually DIDN'T find the cache [nor was it a 10 mile hike in the brush]. To me, it has little/nothing to do with the little smilies on a screen, and everything about getting outside and enjoying a new spot.

[CoyoteRed]

Aren't we a bit sensitive???

Me? Naw. I'm not the one tripping all over themselves trying to justify their cheating.

 

Here's a thread just for you. It's full of prime examples of excuses, whines, justifications, and playing by their own rules. Have fun.

[+Hose502]

Cheating implies that the person knows they are doing something incorrectly and tries to hide it. If people log that they didn't actually find the cache and then marks it as a find, they must be doing it because they thought, in their opinion, it was an actual find. If they wanted to "cheat" they could have simply said "TNLN" and no one would know unless the physical log is verified. You don't cheat in cards by stacking the deck in front of your opponent, you do it in a way that it is concealed from them.

 

But does the physical log really authenticate the visit? There was a cache I did that I think in the excitement of finding it, trading items, trading TBs, taking photos, eating a snack and enjoying the peace and quiet, that I forgot to actually sign the log book. I realized that I may have done that when I got home but I wasn't really sure which one it was. I'm not going to go back to each cache I did that day and verify the logs. And I would be kind of annoyed if my log got deleted even though I probably made an actual transaction with the cache.

 

I've also come across a few caches where I could see that my physical log entry could later be unreadable or lost. One cache I found actually had two log books. Quite a few are damp and who knows if it will be legible later. Once was damp enough that the ink wouldn't write well and I was more or less engraving the paper. I opened a magnetic key holder cache to find the log was just scraps of paper people were writing on. A nice gust of wind came right when I opened it and I had to go chasing down a bunch of scraps. I really hope I got them all. The log books are fragile things. If a cache owner wants to be strict on verifying against the log book, it is their cache, but there are legitimate reasons an entry might not be there. Sure, someone could have not found it and logged it as a find. I would feel bad if someone else's log entry got deleted because I accidentally didn't find one of those paper scraps that blew out of the cache.

 

The log is both a log for the cache and a log for the cacher--sometimes I think it would be easier if they were separated. I also wish that the cache's log only allowed notes and that the cacher's log tracked finds and DNFs and kept as personal information only. But I do understand why there are smilies: it is the same reason that forums show number of posts and a forum title, why some communities have karma points, and why World of Warcraft has experience points. Progression keeps a lot of people coming back. It also can present problems as well. I stopped visiting a forum after two years when the software changed and everyone got post counts. There were so many more "noise" posts than "signal" posts because people wanted to boost their numbers and it became unreadable. I gave up World of Warcraft after the politics of end-game got too bad. One person got kicked out of our guild and was effectively blacklisted for a false accusation. Fighting over virtual items seems pointless and that's why I quit that game.

 

When I first started geocaching, I read a lot of the forums to find out as much about geocaching as possible. The tone that I constantly saw kind of scared me and almost persuaded me to try a different hobby instead but I couldn't resist. I then used to be nervous and paranoid anytime I came across an abnormal situation and was scared of travel bugs because I didn't want to upset someone by moving it in the wrong direction. I then told myself that I should just proceed to do what I think is best for me, best for the community and what I think is best for the other geocachers out there. If someone gets upset with something I do, fine. I'll just keep doing what I think is best.

 

Also, when the infield fly rule is in effect, the batter is out even if the ball is dropped.

 

And I think that pointing out people by pasting their logs in a "Found It = Didn't Find It" thread is not nice.

[CoyoteRed]

If someone gets upset with something I do, fine. I'll just keep doing what I think is best.

I'm curious. After signing the log and doing your trading, would you put a cache at the coordinates even though that's not where you found it?

 

Think carefully, because "I'll just keep doing what I think is best" may not be the best course of action.

 

Yes, some folks do put the cache at their ground zero even though it was not where they found it. They thought it best to put it where they thought it should be. They didn't bother to get the feedback from the community that would have told them that's not the thing to do.

 

You don't participate in this hobby in a vacuum. What you do affects others.

 

As someone who has been part of these forums for quite a while now, I see a many new comers come in with their own sense of the way to do things. They are all full of ideas of how it should be done. Never mind "how it should be done" has already been established. Then you get to see how they take the realization that their ideas might not have been the best or even original. Do they say, "Oh, I see your point." Or do they want to argue and change the hobby to suit them?

 

Who remembers the cacher that claims you should change your DNF to a note if the cache ended up missing? The idea was you couldn't not find something that wasn't there.

 

And who was it that claimed that you shouldn't post a DNF until you know you couldn't find it? In other words, no DNF until the cache was deemed missing?

 

Two newbies ideas of how it should be done, yet mutually exclusive. Both went against the community norm. Go figure.

 

If everyone knew the best course of action, if it were encoded into your genes, if there really were "common sense" then there wouldn't be a need for all the guidelines in order to get a cache published. There would be no need for the "Trade Up" mantra. The list goes on and on.

 

Face it. Sometimes you're wrong. Buck up and move on.

[JohnE_Cache]

 

Who remembers the cacher that claims you should change your DNF to a note if the cache ended up missing? The idea was you couldn't not find something that wasn't there.

 

And who was it that claimed that you shouldn't post a DNF until you know you couldn't find it? In other words, no DNF until the cache was deemed missing?

These examples, as well as all the others on the link you provided [thru page 1], seem to have one thing in common:

No cache was found.

 

I don't see anyone arguing that angle.

 

The argument as I see it involves FINDING a cache. The actual cache.

 

So lumping that in with...say, people that never saw the container, people that think the coords are as good as finding the cache, etc just seems a tad disingenuous. But hey...let's go a step further with the dramatics...anyone speeding towards a cache, not using their turn signal, or exceeding 3000 miles since their last oil change ALSO don't get to count the cache, since that's breaking the rules as well.

[+Hose502]

I'm curious. After signing the log and doing your trading, would you put a cache at the coordinates even though that's not where you found it?

No. Where I find it is where it goes back. If it is off by way too much, chances are I wouldn't find it anyway. If I do find it, it goes back exactly where it was and I'll add that information to my log if it hasn't been noted by anyone else. Only the cache owner knows where it is really supposed to be. And the GPS error is a large enough of an area that you can't tell where it is supposed to be by the coordinates anyway.

 

Think carefully, because "I'll just keep doing what I think is best" may not be the best course of action.

 

Yes, some folks do put the cache at their ground zero even though it was not where they found it. They thought it best to put it where they thought it should be. They didn't bother to get the feedback from the community that would have told them that's not the thing to do.

 

You don't participate in this hobby in a vacuum. What you do affects others.

Correct, I agree with that. I do read the forums and try to learn as much as I can. But it does take time to really learn what the accepted norms are. When I hit an unknown situation, I'm very conservative but that doesn't mean others would be. And there are probably many people who never visit the forums, or visit the forums much later, and may not know what these norms are at the time. If a new person moves a cache to what they think is GZ, they are most likely trying to do what they think is best even though it not the correct thing to do. They aren't being malicious, they just don't know that they shouldn't. Hopefully if they post that in the log or ask a question in the forums that people would politely tell them the correct action. Unfortunately there are no internet hookups at the caches to look up every possible scenario.

 

As someone who has been part of these forums for quite a while now, I see a many new comers come in with their own sense of the way to do things. They are all full of ideas of how it should be done. Never mind "how it should be done" has already been established. Then you get to see how they take the realization that their ideas might not have been the best or even original. Do they say, "Oh, I see your point." Or do they want to argue and change the hobby to suit them?

People are excited and want to participate with their ideas. I like it when we get new people at work because sometimes they can put a fresh spin on things. Of course, there are always a stream of ideas that will never happen no matter how much they argue, but debate is a healthy way to talk about things and explain why things are the way they are. When people get assertive about something, that usually means they are passionate about it as well and that is a good thing. A large community has big momentum so a few people arguing to change something that others do not want isn't going to happen anyway.

 

Face it. Sometimes you're wrong. Buck up and move on.

Yes. Nobody is perfect and people make mistakes. Trust me, I know that I do. But people don't have to read or participate in the forums and when someone does and states the guidelines they have been using and then gets called a cheater is a little harsh. When I first started playing poker, I didn't know what I was doing. People would get so mad with me and say nasty things for calling with certain cards. I almost gave it up but there were enough people who showed me the ropes, encouraged me and helped me to learn that I stayed with it. And I'm glad that I did.

 

If someone goes around randomly moving every cache that they see, it does spoil it for others who come along after them. If someone decides to go way outside the norms and log a find for everytime they find GZ and not necessary find the cache does that really spoil it for others? Maybe for some it does, but for me I really don't care how others log their finds. That was my whole point of my initial post. At least if they don't touch the cache, it won't be moved.

 

When I was at Harpers Ferry, I was waiting behind two guys to get my National Parks Passport stamped. There were three stamps there and they both used all three stamps. Were they planning on going to all three places? What is considered a "visit"? Are they possibly cheating? To me, I just don't care. If they want to stamp away, break out 15 passports to stamp for all their friends, whatever. If that is their way to have fun, I am okay with it. Others may not be. It is a lot different than someone who knocks over and vandalizes trail signs that ends up getting others lost. That persons fun makes it not fun for others. I just stamped with the one. One stamp per visit is okay for me no matter how the parks happen to be partitioned.

[+Sagefox]

...If you can believe this, there are actully places in Nevada that have NO trash such as pop bottles, old batteries, and happy meal remains. Honestly, sealed in the melted plastic was the Geocache logo from the Cache Letter, again, NO mistaking the remains.

 

Given the description of the conditions at OP's burnt cache location I would log that cache as Found. There appears to be substantial evidence to support a find, even without seeing a geocaching logo.

 

We often visit the remote deserts of Nevada and California and I know about those vast areas that have no trash. Fun place to cache!

[+Sagefox]

 

...But people don't have to read or participate in the forums and when someone does and states the guidelines they have been using and then gets called a cheater is a little harsh.

 

Yep. That comment gets thrown down on the table a lot around here. It is seldom justified to call someone a cheater in this game even when the action being criticized begs to be challenged (which is often the case). It would be much more effective to state the case without the insult. Then someone might actually take the differing point of view into consideration.

[CoyoteRed]

So lumping that in with...say, people that never saw the container, people that think the coords are as good as finding the cache, etc just seems a tad disingenuous.

Disingenuous? And logging a find when you didn't is not? Oh, come on!

 

Someone simply looking at an object they think is the cache is not a find. Plenty of caches are well integrated into the environment and if the standard is you think you found the cache folks will be pointing to just about anything thinking it's the cache and they have another find.

 

Just because the cache is in a high risk area doesn't give the finder a pass on signing the log. We've got one where folks are constantly logging about their efforts to avoid muggles. It's not even that high risk--not like some where you have to palm a micro as folks pass by, timing it so 6 people's backs are turned at once. The cache I refer to isn't meant to be high risk, but more of an example of hiding a regular where folks in some other areas would claim only a micro would work.

 

The vast majority of folks get it. Looking at a cache is not a find. Fondling a cache is not a find. Opening the cache is not a find. Even reading the physical logbook is not a find. You getting your name in that logbook constitutes a find.

[CoyoteRed]

Yes. Nobody is perfect and people make mistakes. Trust me, I know that I do. But people don't have to read or participate in the forums and when someone does and states the guidelines they have been using and then gets called a cheater is a little harsh. When I first started playing poker, I didn't know what I was doing. People would get so mad with me and say nasty things for calling with certain cards. I almost gave it up but there were enough people who showed me the ropes, encouraged me and helped me to learn that I stayed with it. And I'm glad that I did.

I suppose you argued your point of view was valid with them too?

[CoyoteRed]

 

...But people don't have to read or participate in the forums and when someone does and states the guidelines they have been using and then gets called a cheater is a little harsh.

 

Yep. That comment gets thrown down on the table a lot around here. It is seldom justified to call someone a cheater in this game even when the action being criticized begs to be challenged (which is often the case). It would be much more effective to state the case without the insult. Then someone might actually take the differing point of view into consideration.

Well, then. Provide me with a better term that describes someone who refuses to play a game by the established standards and that's what I'll use.

[Clan Riffster]

The decorum of what constitutes a find has long been established.

Really? Do tell. I've seen many differing opinions on what does, and what does not constitute a "Find", but I haven't seen anything even remotely approaching a long established consensus. In fact, looking back over the threads regarding this topic, I'm seeing that folks have been arguing this nonsense for years. Is that what you consider to be a long established consensus?

 

Why do you think the "sign the logbook to qualify as a find" mantra even exists?

If I had to guess, I'd say it exists because some folks believe that signing the logbook is a critical part of a "Find".

 

However, for those who only pay attention to those rules handed down from on high, I suppose trading kindly doesn't apply to you.

So now you're comparing common courtesy with make believe standards?

 

Now, let's pretend you believe in "sign the logbook to qualify as a find"

Why pretend? I've stated many times that signing the logbook is the only way I'll claim a find. I just don't feel the need to shove imaginary morals down the throats of others. Obviously you do. Hey, I'm kewl with that. If imposing your will on others brings you joy, Gaia bless you, Brother. It's all good. Perhaps your effigy will be turned into a shrine at the Holy Church of Geocaching someday.

Edited June 10, 2007 by Clan Riffster

[+geomann1]

 

...But people don't have to read or participate in the forums and when someone does and states the guidelines they have been using and then gets called a cheater is a little harsh.

 

Yep. That comment gets thrown down on the table a lot around here. It is seldom justified to call someone a cheater in this game even when the action being criticized begs to be challenged (which is often the case). It would be much more effective to state the case without the insult. Then someone might actually take the differing point of view into consideration.

 

As with most activities, the "rules and guidelines" do not address all circumstances, and that there are gray areas that most of us deal with as honestly as we can and with some common sense. I believe that most of us don't want a 300 page geocaching rule book. My point has always been that people should act in good faith, and that the last thing we need is people to acuse other people of cheating because they don't follow someones narrow minded view of the guidelines and what the sport should be.

 

What I just can't fathom is the lack of basic common sense. For example, if I search for and find a nano, hold it in my hands, open the container, but do not sign the log because I cannot extract it because it is jammed in and I don't have a pair a tweezers, according to one poster here, I did not find the cache and am supposed to log it as a DNF because I did not sign the log? And I am a smiley obsessed cheater if I do? This is truly moronic.

[Clan Riffster]

And there are probably many people who never visit the forums, or visit the forums much later, and may not know what these norms are at the time.

If I had to invent a number that felt accurate to me, I'd guess that 99.9% of cachers do not regularly come to these forums.

 

debate is a healthy way to talk about things

Until you start debating with fanatics. I had what I considered to be a great debate going with a Baptist preacher (minister?) regarding <topic irrelevant>. His side of the debate consisted of telling me that "all those guys are sinners and are going to ****", and that I must be some kind of heathen for supporting them. No logic involved. Kinda like the folks in here declaring, "If you don't play this game my way, you're a cheater and/or liar". Seems kinda pompous to me.

[CoyoteRed]

I believe that most of us don't want a 300 page geocaching rule book.

Exactly. That's why "sign the logbook" is the standard for a find. Simple. Clean.

 

You have the rest of the page and 299 more for your exceptions and "what ifs."

[Trinity's Crew]

Aren't we a bit sensitive???

Me? Naw. I'm not the one tripping all over themselves trying to justify their cheating.

You forgot to mention that you ARE the one deriding and belittling those who disagree with you. Edited June 10, 2007 by Trinity's Crew

[Clan Riffster]

Looking at a cache is not a find.

According to the Holy Book of Coyote Red, Chapter 7, Verse 25

Fondling a cache is not a find.

According to the Holy Book of Coyote Red, Chapter 7, Verse 26

Opening the cache is not a find.

According to the Holy Book of Coyote Red, Chapter 7, Verse 27

Even reading the physical logbook is not a find.

According to the Holy Book of Coyote Red, Chapter 7, Verse 28

You getting your name in that logbook constitutes a find.

According to the Holy Book of Coyote Red, Chapter 7, Verse 29

 

All hail the Holy Book of Coyote Red, without which we would all face certain d@mn@tion.

[Clan Riffster]

Provide me with a better term that describes someone who refuses to play a game by the established standards and that's what I'll use.

Whose established standards?

[CoyoteRed]

Why pretend? I've stated many times that signing the logbook is the only way I'll claim a find. I just don't feel the need to shove imaginary morals down the throats of others. Obviously you do.

I enforce a standard on my own finds just like you do. I also enforce it with our caches on the finds claimed by others. I've already mentioned why I do this. I believe claiming a find when you did not sign the logbook constitutes a bogus log. I'll question it and delete it if necessary.

 

Yes, I do suppose me enforcing this rule on my caches can be construed to infringing on others' ability to log what ever the heck they want on my caches, but it's my cache and the Groundspeak's guidelines actually tell they expect it of me. There are plenty of folks who rise to the challenge of finding our caches. One small thing I can do to applaud them is make reasonably sure those others who claim the same accomplishment actually did as well.

 

Now, where have I said you have to do the same I do? It's always been what I'd do and I conform to what I see as the community standards. (Shall I link to that thread where folks are making fun of those bogus logs again to show I'm not alone in my thinking?) I have my opinions and that somehow equates to shoving them down your throat. Odd.

 

EDIT: clarity.

Edited June 11, 2007 by CoyoteRed

[CoyoteRed]

Aren't we a bit sensitive???

Me? Naw. I'm not the one tripping all over themselves trying to justify their cheating.

You forgot to mention that you ARE the one deriding and belittling those who disagree with you.

 

Sorry, I get that way when my patience wears thin. I'm not BrianSnat, you know.

[CoyoteRed]

Provide me with a better term that describes someone who refuses to play a game by the established standards and that's what I'll use.

Whose established standards?

Does it matter? Geocaching, poker, tiddlywinks. I don't think it matters. Do you?

[CoyoteRed]

Looking at a cache is not a find.

According to the Holy Book of Coyote Red, Chapter 7, Verse 25

 

...

 

I spell my name as one word, two caps.

[+geomann1]

Looking at a cache is not a find.

According to the Holy Book of Coyote Red, Chapter 7, Verse 25

Fondling a cache is not a find.

According to the Holy Book of Coyote Red, Chapter 7, Verse 26

Opening the cache is not a find.

According to the Holy Book of Coyote Red, Chapter 7, Verse 27

Even reading the physical logbook is not a find.

According to the Holy Book of Coyote Red, Chapter 7, Verse 28

You getting your name in that logbook constitutes a find.

According to the Holy Book of Coyote Red, Chapter 7, Verse 29

 

All hail the Holy Book of Coyote Red, without which we would all face certain d@mn@tion.

 

Clan - next thing is that logs will be deleted because of poor penmanship.

 

And how do I know that the person who actually signed the log book is the same person who claimed the smiley? As were are all suspected cheats, some form of verification is needed.

 

It is also worth noting that "guidelines" are not the same as "rules".

 

It is good that most cachers or potential cachers don't read these posts, as someone noted, because they would all be scared away.

[CoyoteRed]

And how do I know that the person who actually signed the log book is the same person who claimed the smiley?

Are we going to go down the road of the ridiculous, now?

 

As long as the 'nym in the logbook and that of the user that logs online, that's good enough for me. I'm not going to check IDs. I only have to be reasonably sure, not absolutely, the cache was visited by those claiming it.

 

If you want to have a friend go around putting your name in logbooks then you only open yourself up to more scorn and ridicule. Of course, when it comes to my attention that's what you're doing with our caches, I'd have to delete your logs because now I know, even though the names in the logbook and online match, they are bogus.

[+geomann1]

This thread reminds me of my youth, when the neighborhood kids and I would play baseball together. We would follow the basic rules of the game, but sometimes conditions would not allow that. The rules for example, do not cover a car pulling onto the field when we were playing in a street. We were generally all reasonable, and if their were a disagreement, we would have a "do over". We would play by our own version of the rules and everyone had a good time.

 

The only time we had problems was when some of the parents showed up and insisted they we play according to the "official rules" as they interpreted them. The parents would argue and we all got annoyed because we just wanted to play our game and have fun. Sometimes the parents would get real angry with each other and storm off dragging their kid(s) with them.

 

I see a real parallel here. Most cachers just want to have fun and participate in accordance with what they feel is a reasonable interpretion of the "guidelines". But unfortunately, there will always be a few self-styled purists who will interject themselves and create nastiness by calling people cheats and deleting peoples logs, etc.

 

Things never change.

 

As others have noted, probably 99% of all cachers are "cheaters" according to the narrow interpretation of the guidelines, if they did not make a trade on a cache.

[+uxorious]

Living in the Puget Sound region it is sometimes hard to keep the logs dry and sign-able. I have found logs that were no more then spit-wads, and others so wet they could not be signed.

 

When I first started this game, I would log those as a found even though I had not signed them. (I only have a couple logged that way)

 

I later found out that it is common in this area to add a slip of paper with your signed log. That is what I've done since. Even though adding a piece of paper to a spit wad does nothing but make the spit wad bigger, I feel my log is as clear as the ones added before the log deteriorated.

 

While I generally agree with CoyoteRed, a cache should be handled opened and logged. However, if someone logs that they saw the cache with a spotter scope from across the valley, I would just ignore them. I would most likely delete their log if it was my cache, but anyone that could read, could tell they hadn't really found the cache.

 

In the gray areas, I like the kids playing baseball analogy. Figure out the best way to work around the problem and have fun.

[+RenoGem & RenoStar]

In the gray areas, I like the kids playing baseball analogy. Figure out the best way to work around the problem and have fun.

 

See, I should've asked the children Next time I post a question regarding having to think outside of the box I'll take into consideration that I may encounter answers from people who have never HAD to think outside of the box, therefore are incapable of anything but black & white answers. I guess we are just fortunate to live in a place that consists of "grey area" allowing us to exercise our minds every now and again.

[+Wacka]

I did a six stage multi and the final clue was "under a bush in the high grass on the side of the hill". The high grass AND the bush had been mowed down. I found about 30 pieces of a tupperware and about 200 scraps of paper and pieces of various trinkets. I looged it as a find, since obviously it was the cache. The owner saud that since I found the logbook, even though it was shredded beyond rcognition, it was a find. He disabled it and never replaced it.

 

To those who have strict interpertations of "their' rules:

Lighten up Francis.

[Clan Riffster]

I enforce a standard on my own finds just like you do. I also enforce it on the finds claimed by others.

And zealotry comes to caching. Whoo Hoo!! Grab your torches & pitchforks!! There's some property for sale in Salem Ma. You might like it there. Perhaps you should insist that folks who locate your caches include the phrase, "Thanx for the cache, in thy mercy", in their logs? It might help you with your ego.

 

Now, where have I said you have to do the same I do?

Every time you berate someone for not playing a game the way you do.

 

It's always been what I'd do and I conform to what I see as the community standards.

Actually, it's always been what you do, combined with your statement that those who don't conform to your method of playing a game without rules are cheaters, bogus and/or liars.

 

(Shall I link to that thread where folks are making fun of those bogus logs again to show I'm not alone in my thinking?)

Not necessary. I know you're not the only self righteous, pompous zealot in here.

 

I have my opinions and that somehow equates to shoving them down your throat.

You berate anyone who plays differently than you do. That's where you're shoving your opinions down other's throats.

[Clan Riffster]

Provide me with a better term that describes someone who refuses to play a game by the established standards and that's what I'll use.

Whose established standards?

Does it matter? Geocaching, poker, tiddlywinks. I don't think it matters. Do you?

Is this a rhetorical question? Of course it matters. You've created this imaginary set of established standards, and you berate anyone who doesn't play this game by those imaginary standards. These imaginary standards came from the mind of Coyote Red, not Groundspeak, so I question their validity. Has Groundspeak sanctioned your imaginary standards?

[+tozainamboku]

Godwin Alert

Why wasn't this thread locked back here?

the Fuerher says the log must be signed, and one must always obey orders!.

 

There are some good reasons for the puritans to insist on signing the log in order to claim a find. If the hider has presented a challenge in retrieving the cache, opening the cache, or even in signing the log - a signed log is the only way to confirm you met the challenge. I assume that all those people hiding those little nanos where you need a tweezers to remove the log and a magnifying glass to sign the log really mean that to be part of the challenge. I suspect that rolling up the log so that it fits back in the cache is also part of the challenge. It is always the part the I have the most trouble with. Unfortunately, I have already signed the log so if I can't get it back in the cache the sign = find rule doesn't really help me in determining if this is a find or not. Oddly, some of the people who claim that sign = find is the only way to make sure that we complete the challenge the cache owner intended, will object if a cache owner places additional requirements for logging a find on the cache. So if the owner say that you must write a haiku to log a find, there is much objection from the puritans that you are taking away a legitimate find from someone who has met the only requirement of signing the log.

 

I think the puritans have a misunderstanding of the game. When Dave Ulmer hid the first geocache he was simple curious as to whether turning off Selective Availability now meant that someone could use a handheld GPS receiver to get close enough to find a hidden cache. He asked that you write in the log in the cache about your experience and that you take something and leave something. How his simple instructions got turned into an "official rule" and then became requirements for logging a find on line when Jeremy Irish set up Geocaching.com is a mystery to me.

 

It seems to me that in order to play this game you simply need to go looking for a cache. If you want you can log online to tell about your experience. If you didn't find the cache you use a DNF log and if you found the cache you use the Found It log. If you are not sure, use a Note or a DNF, simply because there are many times when you do find something that turns out not to be the cache. It may even be a letterbox that happens to be close by. If the puritans wish to play a sign=find game they are free to log just the caches where they signed the physical log. If a puritan owns a cache, he is within his rights to check the physical log book and delete your online log if you didn't sign. But even CoyoteRed has said in the past that he won't delete your log if you have a good excuse and some way to prove that you did find the cache. Since you may not know if the cache owner is a puritan who will delete your log, it is always good practice to sign the log if you can.

Edited June 10, 2007 by tozainamboku

[JohnE_Cache]

Someone simply looking at an object they think is the cache is not a find.

Even if what they THINK is the cache turns out to be exactly what the hider KNOWS his cache looked like before the bear, mower, fire etc intervened? Even if the hider isn't anal and grants them a find?

 

Looking at a cache is not a find. Fondling a cache is not a find. Opening the cache is not a find. Even reading the physical logbook is not a find. You getting your name in that logbook constitutes a find.

Ok, so how about everyone across the country write my name in their upcoming logbooks for the week. Then I can PROVE that I found thousands of caches all over the country, without so much as leaving my city. What does that prove? I mean, obviously we have this huge problem of cheating geocachers...I say we require a DNA sample, retina scan, photograph with GPS coords/cache/cacher, thumbprint, and what the hey...lets get the whole lot notorized, shall we?

 

Just go ahead and say it: Finding a cache is not finding a cache.

Edited June 10, 2007 by JohnE_Cache

[Trinity's Crew]

Aren't we a bit sensitive???

Me? Naw. I'm not the one tripping all over themselves trying to justify their cheating.

You forgot to mention that you ARE the one deriding and belittling those who disagree with you.

 

Sorry, I get that way when my patience wears thin. I'm not BrianSnat, you know.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean... care to elaborate?

[CoyoteRed]

Provide me with a better term that describes someone who refuses to play a game by the established standards and that's what I'll use.

Whose established standards?

Does it matter? Geocaching, poker, tiddlywinks. I don't think it matters. Do you?

Is this a rhetorical question? Of course it matters. You've created this imaginary set of established standards, and you berate anyone who doesn't play this game by those imaginary standards. These imaginary standards came from the mind of Coyote Red, not Groundspeak, so I question their validity. Has Groundspeak sanctioned your imaginary standards?

Quite frankly, I'm glad I moved from Daytona Beach. It's scary to think they let you carry a gun. Really.

 

And zealotry comes to caching. Whoo Hoo!! Grab your torches & pitchforks!! There's some property for sale in Salem Ma. You might like it there. Perhaps you should insist that folks who locate your caches include the phrase, "Thanx for the cache, in thy mercy", in their logs? It might help you with your ego.

Yeah, you're helping your argument. A lot. Edited June 11, 2007 by CoyoteRed

[+Harry Dolphin]

geomann1, please don't search for my caches either.

Geocaching for Dummies: Find the cache, sign the log, get a smiley. Yes, I will delete logs that say "Didn't feel like opening the cache to sign the log". That is part of the game!

[+Hose502]

Since I entered the conversation, I want to try and resolve the conversation (even though I probably shouldn't have entered it). Most of this is directed to resolving comments between me and CoyoteRed.

 

For the record, I have physically signed the log (whatever that may be) for every cache I have "found" except for one that I may have forgotten to actually sign. I agree that people who write an online log saying they found it with "We didn't find it but we were really close!!!" didn't actually find it. Sometime in the future, I plan to place one or two caches of my own when I am comfortable with doing so. When I do, if someone logs that kind of find, I'll just let it stand. Will I be doing a disservice to the geocaching community by doing so? Personally, I don't mind and I don't want to interfere with their fun even if I disagree with their find.

 

I have not actually come across a destroyed cache yet, but I previously said that if I thought with 100% confidence that it was the actual cache that I would log it as a find. Now, I'll just log it as a DNF. To me it doesn't matter but to some it does so I'll do it as a DNF. From this debate I've realized that it is easier this way.

 

If I physically have the cache in my hand and am able to transact with it--even if I choose not to--I'm going to log it as a find. That includes me forgetting to sign the log book, log book missing, log book soaked, forgot a pen and none in the cache work, etc. I don't see how the majority would think I was in the wrong there. If so, tell me. The exception in this case is if the cache description explicitly says, "Sign it, or don't find it" then I will not log it as a find.

 

If you want to be strict with physical log verification, I have no problem with that. I assume you would be polite with that? I'm a computer guy and deletion is something that is never taken lightly.

 

Let's say this happens: I visit your cache and sign the log. You visit to verify and do not find my log entry. You send me an email saying: "I was checking the log today and noticed that you logged a find for my cache but I didn't find an entry in the cache log. I require that all finds be logged in the cache log as well. Was there any reason you were unable to sign the log?". I reply with: "As far as I know, I did sign the log". You reply with: "Since I don't see it in my records, I require that you revisit the cache to sign the log or change your find to a DNF or note. If you are unable to do so, I will have to delete your log entry. Sorry for any inconvenience this may have caused". If that is how it would go down--I'd be okay with it.

 

Now, if it happens this way where you send me an email saying: "You do not have a log entry in my cache but logged online as a find. Explain yourself or it will be deleted!". I would probably say "pfft" and get my log entry deleted.

 

If my log entry was a "TNLN" and that was it, I wouldn't care if it got deleted. But if wrote two paragraphs and uploaded a picture I would be upset. If you want to take away the smiley, I don't care, but taking the two paragraphs and photo away matters to me.

 

I had a cache note that got deleted. I visited a cache looking to pick up a specific TB but thought it was gone. It had a goal to go to Gettysburg and I was going there that day. What had happened was that the TB item and tag got separated and someone took the tag and not the item. I dropped off a geocoin. Someone saw that log and revisited the cache to pick up the detached TB item and found that the cache container was gone. The cache was an ammo box and all that was left was the ziplock bags with the contents. They then reported a "needs maintenance" log and I got an email because it was on my watchlist. When I saw the geocoin was still there, I went out to rescue it. I left a note saying that I was out there, searched around for the container in case whoever took it ditched it the woods, took the coin back, and said that maybe ammo boxes are popular with the teenage kids these days. Got a delete for that. Was my last comment offensive? I don't think so but maybe it was. I was just trying to help out and posted a note of what I done and maybe I won't do that anymore.

 

I'm now thinking about keeping all my log entries in my own blog. I'll log the finds and DNFs on geocaching.com and just keep the entries with the administrative things, such as:

 

T: foo

L: bar

SL, TFTC

Details: http://someblogentry.com

 

That way if anyone gets heavy handed on the deletes, I don't care. I still have my record. And that gives me the ability to lump caches for the day into one nice log entry instead of being repetitive in the individual logs. And to also talk about things irrelevant about the actual cache and to talk about DNFs that I am uncomfortable about logging.

 

Is this a satisfactory resolution? I just wanted to debate, not to start an argument.

[+Sagefox]

...It would be much more effective to state the case without the insult. Then someone might actually take the differing point of view into consideration.

Well, then. Provide me with a better term that describes someone who refuses to play a game by the established standards and that's what I'll use.

 

This little mini thread is not about what to call an inappropriate find, it's about inappropriate insulting comments.

[+Mach2003]

I once logged a find, on a micro, and had discovered that I lost my pen on the way to the cache.

I once logged a find on a cache, that the owner had moved to another city, and was thinking of archiving, but it was such a great spot, I replaced it (as best I could at the time, another cacher did a better job a little later). I offered for my log to be deleted, it was not.

I often replace needed cache items, including soggy log books (even containers).

Other than the two above (398 others) LOG=FIND, NO LOG=DNF

I guess CR will think of me as a cheater, who cares!

I do check my cache's logs against the online logs, and give the cacher ample room to explain.

 

Edit: Can't count

Edited June 11, 2007 by Mach2003