how many check logs..

[+KJcachers]

we found a cache today that didn't have a find logged in the cache since back in December. There was only 1 trinket in the cache too. When I went online to log our find somebody had logged a find 3 days ago. saying they dropped another type of trinket in the cache as well. When I looked at this cachers profile it seems this person logged a find in Utah (we are in Virginia) on the same day. So either he is a very fast traveler, back logging, padding his numbers or there is a team of them working seperately in other states. Whatever the reason I notified the cache owner to let them decide what to do with it.

[+geowizerd]

just curious,,how many bother to take the time to check all your cache logs to see if the people who claimed a find realy did ? seems like a terrible waste of time to me..if you have alot of caches then thats all you,d ever get done..

Everytime I do maintenance checks, I photograph the contents of the logbook and check as time allows.

 

If you do paperless caching, when going for maintence, you could make a list of the online loggers and put it onto your palm, and check it out against the paper log when you get there.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

We check when we feel the need. Not much of a problem as I'm not recalling ever having to question a person over a find during an audit. It's always been the folks who claim a find while admitting they didn't find it in the text of the log.

 

I'm just curious as the attitude of some folks who never do an audit. If signing the log is such a big thing in order to claim a find, why the cavalier attitude over checking to see if they actually did it? "You must sign the log, but I'm not going to check to see if you did." Yeah, I know some folks don't care one way or the other. I just think there's a major logical disconnect with this issue for some folks.

 

I never audit.

because

I don't think signing the log is an important part of geocaching.

 

Signing the log may be an important part of qualifying to log it online, but has nothing to do with whether you found it.

 

I don't think logging it online is an important part of geocaching either. I think I have just as much fun in this game as anyone out there, and I haven't logged most of my finds for years! Going somewhere, having fun looking, delighting in the find, enjoying the time and place and people around me - THAT's the important part of geocaching.

 

If we lost the ability to log 'found it' online completely, if Groundspeak just listed them and no numbers were kept, if they had only a Needs Maintenance and a Should Be Archived log and that's it, I do not think it would harm the game one iota!

 

There's no logical disconnect here - just different ways of playing and very different ways of thinking!

 

When our DRR world record attempt finds were so vocally disputed (in the forums but not by a single involved cache owner) it came as a total surprise to me; we obviously found the caches, we wrote DRR on the things! BUT, because that wasn't signing the log sheet, went the hue and cry, it wasn't a find!

 

I still find that logic odd and twisted - you hunt for something, locate it, hold it in your hand... by every description and definition of 'found' EXCEPT for geocaching you have found that thing!!

 

Now, by not signing the log you may not qualify to log that cache online as a find - but nevertheless, you found it! Qualifying to log it online is another story and unrelated to whether or not you found it!

 

I am not sure where or when the log book became the holy grail without which this game cannot be played. I wasn't around but I suspect that the original intent of a log book was to write about the experience for other's enjoyment.

 

Now log books primarily serve the lesser function of proving one's presence... it is a sad state that we require 'proof' from our peers, that so many think that every statement must be verified before acceptance.

 

I do not! If you tell me that you found it, that's good enough for me!

 

I refuse to go through life paranoid that everyone is lying unless they can prove that they are not!

 

Frankly I find the leaps of logic and tortuous legalese amusing

'You may have navigated to the given coordinates, located and touched the cache, even taken pictures of it, but if you didn't sign the log then you didn't find it!'

 

In what other world but geocaching would that make sense? Amazing.

 

On my caches, if you touched it or even SAW it then you found it, and I don't care if you signed the log or didn't.

 

How do I keep dishonest folks from logging my caches? I don't.

 

Until this week I don't think anyone has logged one of mine who didn't find it. The last few weeks CalvinSally has been logging caches throughout the south, so far none of us owners has found a single signature.

 

So, I don't yet know for sure, but someone who has never been there may have logged one of my caches.

 

I pondered the situation and decided that I have my hands full running my own life - I have no interest in trying to run others.

 

The log stays.

Edited January 27, 2008 by TheAlabamaRambler

[+TrailGators]

just curious,,how many bother to take the time to check all your cache logs to see if the people who claimed a find realy did ? seems like a terrible waste of time to me..if you have alot of caches then thats all you,d ever get done..

I have better things to do with my time. I believe in the honor system. Cheaters have no honor.

[CoyoteRed]

I don't think signing the log is an important part of geocaching.

I'm not the least bit surprised.

 

Signing the log may be an important part of qualifying to log it online, but has nothing to do with whether you found it.

Ummm... "Checking logs" is part of checking the online logs against the paper logs to see if they "qualified" to log it online.

 

If we lost the ability to log 'found it' online completely, if Groundspeak just listed them and no numbers were kept, if they had only a Needs Maintenance and a Should Be Archived log and that's it, I do not think it would harm the game one iota!

I'm in agreement here--to a point. I think it would drastically increase the quality of overall geocaching experience as most, if not all, of the elements that are based on the almighty smilie would eventually go away. The efforts would lean further to making an entertaining caching experience as forces to produce "smilie excuses" would be eliminated.

 

When our DRR world record attempt finds were so vocally disputed (in the forums but not by a single involved cache owner) it came as a total surprise to me...

I'm sure I'm not alone in being surprised that you or anyone in general thought that signing the outside of a container was the least bit acceptable. Didn't you say that some of your team members questioned the practice and you were the one that said it was okay? Sounded like you weren't even in agreement with your own, and primary I may add, team members.

 

In what other world but geocaching would that make sense? Amazing.

I'm not sure what other hobbies are exactly the same, but the closest I can think of is letterboxing. You're not logging online, but you are collecting stamp images. That's your proof. Which I think is really neat in that you carry your proof around with you in the form of the images you've collected. No auditing needed! There are programs where you collect stamp images from different parks. There are peak registers. There are controls in orienteering. There are stamps or other controls in poker runs. I'm sure there are more, and more accurate, examples. Geocaching is not unique in this respect. Other hobbies have established and accepted controls. Signing the log is the one geocaching uses.

[+Team Cotati]

The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements.

(from the Cache Listing Requirements).

 

So taking the above into consideration, should this be seen as irresponsible ownership when a cache owner doesn't follow the requirements? And by submitting a cache to GC.com aren't you agreeing to follow the requirements?

 

Curious what everyone thinks,

 

DCC

 

Speaking for myself, I follow that guideline explicitly.

[Dinoprophet]

The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements.

(from the Cache Listing Requirements).

 

So taking the above into consideration, should this be seen as irresponsible ownership when a cache owner doesn't follow the requirements? And by submitting a cache to GC.com aren't you agreeing to follow the requirements?

 

Curious what everyone thinks,

 

DCC

 

Speaking for myself, I follow that guideline explicitly.

The guideline does not say you have to audit your log. If I have no reason to suspect a log is bogus, I have no reason to delete it.

 

For that matter, if we're going to go by the strict letter of the law, the appearance of bogusness is sufficient to delete it. If I suspect a log is bogus, I don't need to audit the physical log.

[+Wazat]

Easy way to get a log validated is to post a question on the log book and the finder has to verify this via a message through Groundspeak. If they don't answer the question they cant claim the find. Thus log gets deleted. Question can be related to the cache or area, maybe what is the 3rd word on the sign just a few meters away. Lots of ways to get round it. Or ask them to send a picture of something at the cache site. I did that to see how a river changes through the different times of the year.

[AZcachemeister]

Easy way to get a log validated is to post a question on the log book and the finder has to verify this via a message through Groundspeak. If they don't answer the question they cant claim the find. Thus log gets deleted. Question can be related to the cache or area, maybe what is the 3rd word on the sign just a few meters away. Lots of ways to get round it. Or ask them to send a picture of something at the cache site. I did that to see how a river changes through the different times of the year.

 

Many cachers are just caching by a waypoint, and will not see your additional requirements (which as suggested in another thread should make your cache an unknown {puzzle} cache). They will assume that if they sign the log, all is well.

 

I rarely audit logs, but I have deleted some. It made me angry, and then feel badly that someone put me in that position in the first place.

[+TotemLake]

just curious,,how many bother to take the time to check all your cache logs to see if the people who claimed a find realy did ? seems like a terrible waste of time to me..if you have alot of caches then thats all you,d ever get done..

Everytime I do maintenance checks, I photograph the contents of the logbook and check as time allows.

 

If you do paperless caching, when going for maintence, you could make a list of the online loggers and put it onto your palm, and check it out against the paper log when you get there.

I'm not finding my cache so my PPC stays home. I do take my camera with me.