Assumptions in Logs?

[+Jeep_Dog]

Well, sometimes I am just aghast. Why do folks have to make assumptions about others without difinitive proof? I have seen an increase in the number of such assumptive logs in the last 6 or so months.

 

For example, this said following a one of my recent finds:

 

"Found this one this morning with my Battle Buddy ... The previous cacher left it completely exposed so we re-stashed it. [buddy] also left a travel gnome in it. Enjoy."

 

Here's some of the rest of the story- I am ALWAYS very careful with replacing a cache hide exactly the way I found it. If I find anything out of the ordinary, I state as such in the log or email a cache owner. The only exceptions to hiding a cache differently than I found it is like a somewhat close cache to the one above - where a cache is obviously dislodged (in the case to the follow-on cache to the one above, the cache was on the way down a mountain).

 

At any rate, some assumptions are made in the above log with which I disagree:

 

1) They assume the cache should be hidden differently;

 

2) They assume that they have a better hiding method than the owner intends;

 

3) They assume that the previous cacher has been the cause of #1 and/or #2.

 

No, my "feelings" are not hurt about the above incident. I am truly concerned about such logs, when it is just as easy to objectively state "we are not sure about the cache hiding spot, as we found it in an exposed position, so we rehid it. Hiding technique being emailed to the owner."

[+joranda]

Yeah, I try and put it back the way I found it.

[knowschad]

Oh, I don't know if I agree with you, at least considering the way you presented your argument. If I find a cache truely out in the open, I would generally assume that its about to be muggled, and would try to protect it. Very few cache owners would expose their cache that openly (I HAVE seen exceptions, though!). In that case, I would try to cover it better, but I'd definately leave it where I found it.

 

I've also had my own hides rehidden, though, and I don't like that. The re-hides are generally less creative than my original hide, and have hampered my ability to maintain the cache as I'd like.

[Neos2]

Could you be making any assumptions without definitive proof?

 

You seem to be offended that someone thinks you left the cache more out in the open than it should have been.

 

Could it have been moved by another cacher who came there after you who has not logged online yet (and may never log online)?

Could it have been moved by someone who does not geocache?

Could it have been moved by an animal or a force of nature?

 

Might the person(s) have found the cache "obviously disloged" from any sort of logical place and decided to move it to a spot that better matched the description by the owner and previous cachers?

 

I've found caches sitting in front of a tree next to a well traveled trail, only to read a description that sounded like it was originally hidden inside a fallen log, well off the trail. I'm certainly not going to put one like that back the same way I found it. Any time I find one like that, I'd hide it as close to the posted cords as possible, in a spot that matched the description as closely as possible, and send a private email to the owner about any concerns I had.

[+PhxChem]

The previous cacher left it completely exposed so we re-stashed it.

 

Well, if you indeed found it a certain way.....then placed it back that way, and that way was exposed....what would be incorrect about the above statement.

 

Could you be taking this a TAD personally? What assumptions are you making?

[+Jackalgirl]

The previous cacher left it completely exposed so we re-stashed it.

 

Well, if you indeed found it a certain way.....then placed it back that way, and that way was exposed....what would be incorrect about the above statement.

 

Could you be taking this a TAD personally? What assumptions are you making?

 

I assume that the problem isn't that it was out in the open, but that the person assumed (or appeared to assume) it was the previous cacher who'd left it out.

 

I recently found a cache out in the open too, but it was in such a wide-open place that I imagine a muggle could easily have been the one to have left it out. It's a place that's obviously favorite with families and I can just see some little kid finding it during his or her explorations. At least whoever it was who did it left it there and didn't take it home. But I have no way of knowing whether it was a cacher or muggle who Done the Deed.

[+MaplessInSeattle]

I'm a little torn on this concept. arguments about assumptions aside, it does raise a good point.

I've seen a number of my waypoints for my multi do a bit of traveling, and I've seen some of my caches move a little ways away.

I would be very disappointed however if one of my caches that is supposed to be exposed got covered, or vice versa. It's a tough call. I mean, I have seen some caches that you could tell were left in the open, be it by cachers, muggles, or animals. I placed them back, near what looked to be the original camo, and messaged the owner in private about it.

However, if I came across a cache that is pretty exposed, but doesn't appear to have need for additional "hiding", I leave it where I picked it up from.

I have about five caches where if someone moved or rehid them I might not be able to find them myself.

 

As for assumptions it's a two way thing, people will always make assumptions, it's our nature.

I could assume that people have nearly killed a tree at WP5 trying to find my waypoint marker, or, I can assume that the tree is pretty fragile, and pieced inadvertently came off during a normal gentle searching of the area. Unless you're there at the time, you can't really assume much.

[Mushtang]

I had a similar experience once.

 

I'd found a cache under a bush in a hidden area in a park, so I put it back under the bush when I was done. Later I was re-reading my recent logs and 2 days after I logged a Find someone else did too, but in their log they said that the cache was laying out on the grass in plain view of anyone, and "looked like it had been sitting there about 2 days".

 

C'mon, how can a cache look like it had been sitting out for "about 2 days"? I knew what they were suggesting, but I knew it wasn't true.

 

I couldn't do anything about it so I didn't even try. All I could do is roll my eyes and try not to be 2 days in front of THAT cacher again.

[+jipow]

We found one this past weekend that I'm sure was not hidden wherre the owner hid it (In fact it was'nt hid at all) I put it back where I found it and sent a e mail to the owner.

[+Isonzo Karst]

... The previous cacher left it completely exposed

 

yeah, that's annoying. What are the chances, really, that a cacher left any cache "completely exposed"? Near zero, at least if completely exposed is a really bad idea.

 

It's not "recent" though. I've been accused of assorted carelessness in logs of like that going back a number of years.

 

It's especially unpleasant to be the Last to Find. I got blasted by the cache owner on one where I recall finding it and thinking, "this won't last". It didn't either (playground hide) but I was last finder, so clearly I'd exposed the cache. That I found it about 5 am with nobody around, and that it was hidden directly on a slide never entered the equation for that cache owner .....

 

Just take some skin thickening juice and cache on.

Maybe you can sweet-talk Keystone out of some Chemical X - I hear that's the anodyne to all cacher whining

[+Jeep_Dog]

The previous cacher left it completely exposed so we re-stashed it.

 

Well, if you indeed found it a certain way.....then placed it back that way, and that way was exposed....what would be incorrect about the above statement.

 

Could you be taking this a TAD personally? What assumptions are you making?

 

I assume that the problem isn't that it was out in the open, but that the person assumed (or appeared to assume) it was the previous cacher who'd left it out.

 

Precisely. Thank you for noticing the point I was trying to make. It has nothing to do with the container that was left in the open, but the assumption about the previous cacher (in this case, it is me, but I've seen other logs like this that bother me that do not involve me, but did not feel at liberty to use one of those as an "example").

 

In the case of this cache, folks, it is a magnetic altoids tin on a metal object. The lid on the tin is not doing so well (loose), and there are somewhat limited places to put the cache horizontally with the lid facing up. Indeed, there are a couple places somewhat more "discreet," but this location and where the cache is hidden does not scream "here I am!" Who knows how the cache was originally hidden but for the cache owner - the last time the cache owner signed the log book was 18 months prior, and at that visit left a note in the log that they took an MGA coin out of the cache and never logged it out online.

 

So, I'll say it again - is a log of "previous cacher left this in the open" really necessary or even helpful? Would it not be better to simply say "cache is in the open, we re-hid it more discreetly, and emailing the owner as to details of the hiding spot?"

[+Texsox]

No one likes to be accused, unfairly, of something so egregious. Why not post a note saying, wasn't me, possibly muggled?

[+Jeep_Dog]

No one likes to be accused, unfairly, of something so egregious. Why not post a note saying, wasn't me, possibly muggled?

 

Yeah, that's exactly what I did - although I did not make any assumptions about muggles being the cause.

 

As brother Isonzo Karst pointed out, believe it or not I've taken this all with a grain of salt, especially given the two folks have a low find count (and one of them claimed a second "find" on this, a second visit).

 

I'm merely trying to promote a discussion that this could be a more open-minded activity if we simply state facts as opposed to making assumptions. Indeed, as I point one finger at someone else this is an experiential lesson where I note that by that act I am pointing three fingers back at myself.

 

At any rate, I would love to have a few doses of Keystone's Chemical X - that man is like a tephlon coated, silicon sprayed, and kevlar-wearing duck!

[+Texsox]

Of course, you made the assumption that the note referred to you. I didn't log any finds for over a year. I sometimes would look at the logs, but rarely signed any. So it could have been moved by a cacher who came after you. And what is the minimum requirement to be called a cacher? A screen name? An account? Or anyone who happens to find it and not toss it in the trash?

 

This kind of stuff was why I stopped logging and looking at these forums. The "He logged a DNF when it should have been a Note" and "He was rude" and "He didn't like my hide" etc. are pretty silly in the grand scheme of life.

 

People take these logs way to seriously IMNSHO.

 

But play it the way you feel it.

[+nittany dave]

So, I'll say it again - is a log of "previous cacher left this in the open" really necessary or even helpful?

Helpful to the owner - yes. I would want to know that my cache was out in the open. Maybe the hiding spot is the home of an animal or rain can wash it out.

Helpful to accuse the previous hider - No. That was unnecessary and probably almost always not true. If you don't see someone leave it in the open just do the right thing and leave it at that.

Would it not be better to simply say "cache is in the open, we re-hid it more discreetly, and emailing the owner as to details of the hiding spot?"

Yes

[+Parboy]

Generally if I find a cache exposed I will post it as such. However I am always careful to explain why as to not point blame. Example . If a cache has been Idle for a cpl of months and the last person covered with leaves of course the leaves are gone. I would say Cache partialy exposed because leaves blew off. Not important info but I will place it out to perhaps let the owner know more frequent cheks may be needed. If I find it off coord and sitting on top of a stump . I will say so. If the last cacher left it exposed badly and not in its correct location he should be called out.

[+Renegade Knight]

Well, sometimes I am just aghast. Why do folks have to make assumptions about others without difinitive proof? I have seen an increase in the number of such assumptive logs in the last 6 or so months.

 

For example, this said following a one of my recent finds:

 

"Found this one this morning with my Battle Buddy ... The previous cacher left it completely exposed so we re-stashed it. [buddy] also left a travel gnome in it. Enjoy."....

 

Looks reasonable.

My caches are normally concealed. If they aren't one or more finders didn't bother. Can't say which one, started the trend, but I can say that the last one before checked did.

 

If I find an exposed cache and there is a reasonable way to conceal it, I do. I don't move the cache to do it.

 

Don't take the log personal, but don't assume that they are wrong about it either. The odds are 50/50 either way and it's all guesswork on which way the split goes.