Anyone Ever See THIS Before?

[+GrievousAngel]

Well, I've seen some pretty lame logs, but this is the first time I've seen this one, which I got yesterday on one of my caches: "A quick find. Please pardon me for not signing the log, I didn't want to bother wrestling it back into the container." What next? "Yay, FTF!!! Please pardon me for not signing the log, I didn't want to bother leaving my house today."??? Now if the finder had mentioned that s/he had severe arthritis or a broken hand or something, I could understand it, but "didn't want to bother"??

 

Is this a new trend?

 

Edited to correct typo.

Edited June 29, 2008 by GrievousAngel

[+TotemLake]

Unfortunately, no it isn't a new trend. We're just seeing it spread to the NW. There is/was a debate the seeker is merely playing the game their way, but IMO, it comes down to the premise the find is a countable find if there is a signature in the logbook. Of course, that also lays the groundwork for being accused of being a purist and you're not allowing the player to play their way. It's a cicrular argument with all kinds of variables.

 

Personally, if the signature isn't in the log, the find doesn't count. If the logbook is missing, then other proof the container was found and not just the assumed location, then proof should be on hand in the container the person was there. I have logged a DNF on a cache because I didn't have a pen. I have logged two caches as notes because I did not sign the logbook.

 

Purist? Ok. But that follows the basic premise of being able to count the find. Generally speaking, some folks declare this is taking the below quoted guidelines in too strict an interpretation; that the wording was built in with flexibility for the seeker. I say, the final word is the owner's.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/faq/

Take something from the cache

Leave something in the cache

Write about it in the logbook

 

http://www.geocaching.com/about/finding.aspx

The Find

Huzzah! You found the cache! Congratulations! Now what?

 

Usually you take an item and leave an item, and enter your name and experience you had into the log book. Some people prefer to just enter their name into the log book. It’s an accomplishment enough to locate the cache.

[+Trucker Lee]

Even tho my fat little fingers have some difficulty rerolling logs for some caches, I still manage. And I will still mark the paper in some way if I want to claim the find. Without this, there is no way to be sure the finder found it, except maybe an email pic to owner with an explanation that both hands are broken or rheumatiod arthritis makes this impossible. But to "not be bothered"! Why bother allowing this log to grace your cache page?

[+MtnMutt-ProDuckShins]

This so call cacher has a unique way of caching as you review this ones CACHE History and their pattern of being in various locations. After the review at that time you make your call as to having been there or Virtual wandering.

[+Babybackpackers]

Please pardon me for not posting a relpy , I didn't want to bother.

 

 

 

HEHE

[+ProjectFred325]

If the name aint on the paper it aint a find IMO. However, your cache your rule may vary slightly and it can say so as part of that cache. The CO has the right to change the rule for logging the find Not the person making the find.

 

I parked in front on Groundspeak HQ, got out of my car and looked in the windows. I saw the place. No need for the tour, Give me a smiley. Uhm NO.

 

I drove up to the pass and parked in the lot at Hyak. i walked to the tunnel looked thru and saw the other side. I get the APE find. UHM NO.

 

I know right where a scuba cache is off Ruston way is and can float in a boat over it. I get a found it. UHM NO

 

CACHE IN HAND NAME ON THE PAPER, or other requirements met. u get the find.

[+Allanon]

Not seen it personally, but if it was one of my caches I'd delete the log.

 

I've started putting a disclaimer on my cache pages that if the log isn't signed, the online log will be deleted.

[+FluteFace]

Yup, I'm pretty much in agreement here . . . no physical log, no online log. I'd delete it, end of story! BTW, this cacher's forum title may say it all!

 

That cacher better watch out as he brings to mind one of the trends I've seen around here, very locally. There is the rumor of a particular NW cacher who would touch the cache and call it good. That name has become something of a verb, particularly when we are having problems extracting the cache, or even can't find the cache. If that cacher's name were Chris, we might jokingly say something like, "Let's Chris that cache and be done with it! Who knows, this cacher's name has a certain ring to it -- he could become part of the local caching lexicon!

Edited June 29, 2008 by FluteFace

[+TrailGators]

I had that happen to me once. When it happened, I emailed the newbie and explained the game and how he really should sign the logbook. I didn't delete the log because I wanted to give him a chance to either delete his log or go back and sign the cache log. A week later he logged that he had gone back and signed it. A week after that the very next cacher reported the cache missing. He even called me to confirm it. The only thing left were the sticks and rocks scattered all over where the ammo can had been hidden. That cache had been there for 3.5 years and 105 finders. It was a bummer to lose that one. So ask yourself this question: Is it worth losing your ammo can, swag and log history?

[+TotemLake]

I had that happen to me once. When it happened, I emailed the newbie and explained the game and how he really should sign the logbook. I didn't delete the log because I wanted to give him a chance to either delete his log or go back and sign the cache log. A week later he logged that he had gone back and signed it. A week after that the very next cacher reported the cache missing. He even called me to confirm it. The only thing left were the sticks and rocks scattered all over where the ammo can had been hidden. That cache had been there for 3.5 years and 105 finders. It was a bummer to lose that one. So ask yourself this question: Is it worth losing your ammo can, swag and log history?

It doesn't take long for a bad rep to develop over the grapevine. The cacher won't last long playing that way but I would not be afraid of having my cache trashed if it meant I didn't have to compromise my principals. Tick me off? You betcha. But I'll feel better knowing I didn't cow to some slimeball with that kind of childish behavior.

[+TrailGators]

I had that happen to me once. When it happened, I emailed the newbie and explained the game and how he really should sign the logbook. I didn't delete the log because I wanted to give him a chance to either delete his log or go back and sign the cache log. A week later he logged that he had gone back and signed it. A week after that the very next cacher reported the cache missing. He even called me to confirm it. The only thing left were the sticks and rocks scattered all over where the ammo can had been hidden. That cache had been there for 3.5 years and 105 finders. It was a bummer to lose that one. So ask yourself this question: Is it worth losing your ammo can, swag and log history?

It doesn't take long for a bad rep to develop over the grapevine. The cacher won't last long playing that way but I would not be afraid of having my cache trashed if it meant I didn't have to compromise my principals. Tick me off? You betcha. But I'll feel better knowing I didn't cow to some slimeball with that kind of childish behavior.

True. My real point was to expect this kind of behavior. People that have no problem lieing will have no problem stealing. Either you have scruples or you don't. So when this happens you may want to consider retrieving other people's bugs and coins before you drop the hammer. This is what I will do next time it happens. Luckily it hardly ever happens. Edited June 29, 2008 by TrailGators

[+TotemLake]

I had that happen to me once. When it happened, I emailed the newbie and explained the game and how he really should sign the logbook. I didn't delete the log because I wanted to give him a chance to either delete his log or go back and sign the cache log. A week later he logged that he had gone back and signed it. A week after that the very next cacher reported the cache missing. He even called me to confirm it. The only thing left were the sticks and rocks scattered all over where the ammo can had been hidden. That cache had been there for 3.5 years and 105 finders. It was a bummer to lose that one. So ask yourself this question: Is it worth losing your ammo can, swag and log history?

It doesn't take long for a bad rep to develop over the grapevine. The cacher won't last long playing that way but I would not be afraid of having my cache trashed if it meant I didn't have to compromise my principals. Tick me off? You betcha. But I'll feel better knowing I didn't cow to some slimeball with that kind of childish behavior.

True. My real point was to expect this kind of behavior. People that have no problem lieing will have no problem stealing. Either you have scruples or you don't. So when this happens you may want to consider retrieving other people's bugs and coins before you drop the hammer. This is what I will do next time it happens. Luckily it hardly ever happens.

That's a good point and I missed it entirely. Thanks for clarifying it.

[+GrievousAngel]

Good points, everyone--and not just because I agree with you!

 

This particular cacher is not a newbie--close to 500 "finds."

 

The cache is a nano stuck to the back of a stop sign--a 1/1.5. It's part of a series of caches with the theme of Motown songs, so the title "In the Name of Love" is a dead giveaway. It's a 1.5 just because you do have to step onto the grass to get it and a person in a wheelchair wouldn't be able to reach the cache. The only thing a finder has to do is

(1.)open the container,

(2.)unroll the strip of paper (and it's a new log, so s/he wouldn't even have to unroll it very far),

(3.)initial it,

(4.)re-roll the log,

(4.)screw the thing back together,

(5.)and replace the nano.

There's even parking very close! Since the finder didn't want to bother doing that, what is s/he willing to do to find a cache?

 

I'm going to contact the cacher and tell him/her that seeing a cache does not equal a find--at least around here. I wanted to check to see if that actually is the prevailing opinion, and you guys have confirmed my own idea of "finding a cache". Thanks!

[+TrailGators]

Good points, everyone--and not just because I agree with you!

 

This particular cacher is not a newbie--close to 500 "finds."

 

The cache is a nano stuck to the back of a stop sign--a 1/1.5. It's part of a series of caches with the theme of Motown songs, so the title "In the Name of Love" is a dead giveaway. It's a 1.5 just because you do have to step onto the grass to get it and a person in a wheelchair wouldn't be able to reach the cache. The only thing a finder has to do is

(1.)open the container,

(2.)unroll the strip of paper (and it's a new log, so s/he wouldn't even have to unroll it very far),

(3.)initial it,

(4.)re-roll the log,

(4.)screw the thing back together,

(5.)and replace the nano.

There's even parking very close! Since the finder didn't want to bother doing that, what is s/he willing to do to find a cache?

 

I'm going to contact the cacher and tell him/her that seeing a cache does not equal a find--at least around here. I wanted to check to see if that actually is the prevailing opinion, and you guys have confirmed my own idea of "finding a cache". Thanks!

Glad we could help! By the way, I have that song stuck in my head and I will never look at those octagonal signs the same way ever again...

 

Edited for one spelling oops...

Edited June 30, 2008 by TrailGators

[+Dgwphotos]

Having found nano caches before, I always have a hard time getting the log book back into the cache. Perhaps that is what is at play here. If it was my cache, I would certainly delete the find, though.

[+CurmudgeonlyGal]

Good points, everyone--and not just because I agree with you!

 

This particular cacher is not a newbie--close to 500 "finds."

...

 

I'm going to contact the cacher and tell him/her that seeing a cache does not equal a find--at least around here. I wanted to check to see if that actually is the prevailing opinion, and you guys have confirmed my own idea of "finding a cache". Thanks!

 

Sounds like a pretty good plan... but what do you intend to do? Delete the log, or ask them to change it? Give them a couple of days to change it, then delete it if they don't?

 

No signature = no find.

 

 

michelle

[+hydnsek]

Ok, made me look. But I didn't see the offending log, so I assume your decision was to delete it (or they did). Now I'll never know who the mystery person was.

[+Lizzy]

I had a similar experience with my Lundeen cache. I nicely emailed the new cacher & let them know that part of the challenge was physically logging the cache without being detected by muggles. I don't believe they rectified things - but I did change the wording on the cache page.

[+SweetSassyPants]

Ok, made me look. But I didn't see the offending log, so I assume your decision was to delete it (or they did). Now I'll never know who the mystery person was.

 

psst hydnsek - she made me look too, but the log was already gone. I checked for other nearby caches and noticed that another one close by was found by someone yesterday with slightly less than 500 finds (as fits GA's clue) and had an interesting forum title (as fits Flutey's clue).

 

I'm jes sayin.

[+GrievousAngel]

I sent the cacher an email saying that I was removing the online log because not signing the physical log meant that it wasn't a find. I encouraged him to go back and sign the log book and added that I was glad he was enjoying caching in our area. I tried to keep it light and friendly.

 

There's a new entry in the online log today, "Signed, for real," and I see that the "didn't want to bother" log for the other nearby cache, "Subterfuge," is now gone. I don't know whether the cacher or the CO removed it.

 

In any case, the person is not from around here, and perhaps (regrettably) just seeing or touching the cache container is considered enough to log a find in his home area.

[+TotemLake]

I sent the cacher an email saying that I was removing the online log because not signing the physical log meant that it wasn't a find. I encouraged him to go back and sign the log book and added that I was glad he was enjoying caching in our area. I tried to keep it light and friendly.

 

There's a new entry in the online log today, "Signed, for real," and I see that the "didn't want to bother" log for the other nearby cache, "Subterfuge," is now gone. I don't know whether the cacher or the CO removed it.

 

In any case, the person is not from around here, and perhaps (regrettably) just seeing or touching the cache container is considered enough to log a find in his home area.

It would be interesting to confirm the signature.

[+Prying Pandora]

Perhaps he isn't being lazy so much as protesting the proliferation of nano caches? Regardless, if you don't sign a signable log, you risk having your find deleted by the cache owner.

[+Kiersolvd]

One of the reasons I don't like putting nano's out is the maintanence issue of having to replace logs all the time. If you see a "." on a nano log, that may just be me trying to save space for the next finder.

[+LandRover]

Perhaps he isn't being lazy so much as protesting the proliferation of nano caches? Regardless, if you don't sign a signable log, you risk having your find deleted by the cache owner.

My method of protesting nanos is to not hunt for them, at least not on purpose.

[+superhoser]

I have had a couple finds on my caches where it was said the log was not signed........... I did not miss a minute of sleep over it. sign it don't sign it go out and have fun finding it. I sign what I find even if it is a simple SH. Do we then delete a log if it was not signed on the log book as intended? what if it is a sticker or a stamp, is that not a real signature ? is it really worth deleting a find? Hell I signed a map printout because the log book was missing. To me it seems like when we start splitting hairs over a signature unless it is A FTF takes away from the goal of getting out side and enjoying the adventure. If somebody wants the reputation of bogus finds then the problem will take care of itself and maybe shame the cacher into signing logs. Or maybe I am just a grumpy @##%)*^

[+ZSandmann]

Yet they found the APE cache?

[+Gan Dalf]

All right, I looked too. I have cache's in the area that they logged as well and now I have to go back to them and see if they really signed them...

[+TotemLake]

According to earlier logs on other caches, he's been in the area twice before, the second time looking for the caches he DNF'd the first time. It appears his caching style may have changed.

[+Jake81499]

I've had this happen to me and I just deleted the logs. I gave them a chance by sending an e-mail asking the location and style of the cache. But nobody ever replies so they get deleted.

 

By the same token, I have personally forgotten to sign logs but I've sent the owners an E-Mail if I realize what I've done. It's only happened twice that I know of. Once was no pencil after a half mile hike so I left a path tag in the cache, the other was I just forgot and realized I may not have signed after thinking about it.