Jump to content

The Terrible, Evil, Insidious Practice of Signing the Logbook and Failing


Vinny & Sue Team
Followers 1

Recommended Posts

[Well, the server burped badly upon submitting this new thread, and it lost my original post, but here it is, in its entirety!]

 

Folks, we have seen numerous threads for years now about the practice of logging fake finds online and how it "must be stopped", and how this practice poses a danger to the entire future of this sport. Indeed, some have claimed that it is one of the Early Signs of the Beginning of the End of Days! Well, through diligent research, I have detected an equally dangerous threat to morality, to ethics, and to the future of this sport.

 

You see, a lot of times when I sign the logbook on caches, particularly wilderness caches, I notice plenty of signatures of geocachers in the logbooks who never end up logging their caches finds online. Now, I am not talking about casual hikers who stumbled upon the cache accidentally and signed the log, but rather, I am talking about people who own established geo accounts, and who have some finds listed on their account already, but who often engage in the practice of chronic serial signing logbooks but failing to log a concomitant online find log. Indeed, sometimes these orphan logbook signatures make up perhaps 20% of all the finds in the logbook, that is, the finds NEVER end up being logged online!

 

And, upon pondering this realization and the enormity of this crime of failing to file online find logs, I realized that this entire topic is such a timely one, and such an important one, that it deserves a dedicated thread, namely, this one. You see, if it is true that the practice of filing fake online find logs will destroy the sport, then it must be equally true that signing the logbook but failing to file an online find log is at least as dangerous to the sport, to ethics and morality, and perhaps to the future of the entire world, for it, too, may be a harbinger of the coming of the End of Days.

 

So, the purpose of this thread is to discuss those evil selfish people who sign the logbook but who fail to file an online find log, and to talk and moan and whine about just how bad and dangerous and immoral this evil practice is.

Link to comment

You mean people sometimes LIE about their caching? You mean to tell me that people LIE about caches they’ve found ... by NOT reporting their finds?

 

Unacceptable.

 

How can I possibly compare my find count to another cacher’s find count when that other cacher LIES about the number of caches he has found? How will I know who is winning?

 

How will the people who have received all those prizes and awards feel when they discover they didn’t really deserve them?

 

If I’m considering hunting a specific hide, how will I know the cache is still there if the three people who found it last week lied by omission and failed to post their smileys?

 

Where is the INTEGRITY?

 

We need a way for each cache owner to create a legitimate "Found It" log, credited to its proper account, for every time a signature appears in the paper log without an accompanying online smiley. For the greater good of the community – for the sake of our very civilization – it is the ONLY acceptable way to responsibly maintain a cache.

 

We need a Smiley Anti-Delete Button.

Link to comment

I don't really care if people don't log online but on one occasion it would have saved me a trip to check on one of my caches. It hadn't been logged in a while so I checked on it. It turned out that a cacher had found it two days before and didn't log online.

 

I still kick myself for not ranting about it here in the forums and calling out the dastardly cacher in public. :)

Link to comment

You see, if it is true that the practice of filing fake online find logs will destroy the sport, then it must be equally true that signing the logbook but failing to file an online find log is at least as dangerous to the sport, to ethics and morality, and perhaps to the future of the entire world, for it, too, may be a harbinger of the coming of the End of Days.

 

 

Wait a minute, Vinny's got me thinking.

 

:o

 

:o

 

I know, it's dangerous!

 

:)

 

:D

 

But I think I have an idea that could SAVE THE SPORT!

 

:D

 

Give this some thought.

 

What if people never sign the logbook, OR log online?

 

No more Needs Maintenance logs because of wet or full logbooks!

 

Cache owners could delete all find logs, because only fake loggers would be posting them!

 

There would be no more angst about 'The Numbers', because they would all be zero!

 

Everyone could claim FTF on all caches, because there would be no proof that they weren't!

 

Everyone would be happy! :D:D:)

Link to comment

Know of a couple people who do this and have found thousands and logged only a few online and have seen it in the logbooks too, sigs for people that never appear online.

 

I don't think it's detrimental to the sport/game/hobby, but I think cache owners, enjoy reading logs from those who find their caches, even if it's just something short.

Link to comment

 

So, the purpose of this thread is to discuss those evil selfish people who sign the logbook but who fail to file an online find log, and to talk and moan and whine about just how bad and dangerous and immoral this evil practice is.

 

Only evil when they take TB's, and don't log them. :D Seriously, I've seen this a dozen or more times. Of course that goes back to the days when people actually wrote more than a signature in the paper log.

 

You are correct, there are tons of these people around. I have to think privacy is their main concern in most cases. And I believe there were many more of them before 2005 (I think that's when it was), when geocaching.com started requiring an account to view cache coords. Before that, anyone with an internet connection and a gps could visit your cache.

 

Someone once came up to me at an event, and started talking about some of my hides. I asked their handle, and they told me, but assured me I'd never heard of them, because they didn't log online. It was a married couple, and they claimed "internet incompetence" as their reason. A likely story. :)

Link to comment

Folks, it seems that I owe all of you who have posted here -- and the entire geocaching community -- a sincere and heartfelt apology. It seems, based both upon the progress of this thread and the outraged reaction of the geocaching community (judging from the PMs and emails that I have received since starting this thread), that I have inadvertently opened a thread about the most controversial and most-despised practice in the history of geocaching, namely, the practice of signing the logbook and failing to file an online find log. While it is true that the topic of fake find logs is somewhat controversial and somewhat divisive, and has led to many angst-filled threads, the current topic of signing the logbook but refusing to log an online find has proven to be at least one hundred times ore powerful in acting as a lightning rod for controversy, hostility, angst and bickering. Judging from the horrid angst-filled posts that precede this post, I would venture a guess that this current topic (i.e., that to which this thread is devoted) is the most divisive and most controversial practice in the history of geocaching.

 

I apologize for all the angst and, while I am sure that many of us will receive death threats for having raised this most despised and most-reviled of topics, I am sure that later generations of geocachers will remember our efforts to air this despicable and evil practice (i.e., of signing the logbook but failing to find an online log) with gratitude and reverence.

 

Please, carry on...

Link to comment

I see logging online as a simple courtesy. The cache owner spent the time, money and effort to hid the cache. The least I can do is let him know I found it.

Actually, to try to get serious for just a moment, I do fully agree with you, and I have said this before on the forums! What I seem to notice is that lame urban micros seem to own very few log sigs which are not accompanied by online find logs, but that rural and wilderness caches, and particularly moderately extreme (i.e., long or difficult hike or scramble up a nasty hillside) wilderness caches, seem to exhibit a much higher percentage of such logs. Personally, I would prefer that folks do file online find logs for my caches. But, having said that, I do not get bent out of shape when they fail to do so.

Link to comment
Give this some thought.

 

What if people never sign the logbook, OR log online?

That's how I used to play. I started caching the week Dave Ulmer hid the very first Stash. I found it but never signed the logbook in the bucket nor did I mention it online anywhere. I also failed to sign the logbooks and log online for the next few years for any of the thousands of caches I probably found.

 

At some point in 2003 I broke down and started logging both, and it's more fun to me this way so I've kept doing it.

Link to comment
Give this some thought.

 

What if people never sign the logbook, OR log online?

That's how I used to play. I started caching the week Dave Ulmer hid the very first Stash. I found it but never signed the logbook in the bucket nor did I mention it online anywhere. I also failed to sign the logbooks and log online for the next few years for any of the thousands of caches I probably found.

 

At some point in 2003 I broke down and started logging both, and it's more fun to me this way so I've kept doing it.

 

Me too.

Link to comment

Folks, it seems that I owe all of you who have posted here -- and the entire geocaching community -- a sincere and heartfelt apology. It seems, based both upon the progress of this thread and the outraged reaction of the geocaching community (judging from the PMs and emails that I have received since starting this thread), that I have inadvertently opened a thread about the most controversial and most-despised practice in the history of geocaching, namely, the practice of signing the logbook and failing to file an online find log. While it is true that the topic of fake find logs is somewhat controversial and somewhat divisive, and has led to many angst-filled threads, the current topic of signing the logbook but refusing to log an online find has proven to be at least one hundred times ore powerful in acting as a lightning rod for controversy, hostility, angst and bickering. Judging from the horrid angst-filled posts that precede this post, I would venture a guess that this current topic (i.e., that to which this thread is devoted) is the most divisive and most controversial practice in the history of geocaching.

 

I apologize for all the angst and, while I am sure that many of us will receive death threats for having raised this most despised and most-reviled of topics, I am sure that later generations of geocachers will remember our efforts to air this despicable and evil practice (i.e., of signing the logbook but failing to find an online log) with gratitude and reverence.

 

Please, carry on...

 

I accept your apology.

Link to comment

I've have stated many times in the forum that when I am doing cache maintenance, I check the physical log book against the online logs and cross out the names in the physical log book of those that don't log online.

 

Don't tell me it doesn't matter. The geocaching rules are clear about the importance of the online log:

 

1. If you take something from the cache, leave something of equal or greater value.

2. Write about your find in the cache logbook.

3. Log your experience at www.geocaching.com.

 

The illegal practice of signing physical logs and not logging online not only requires me to make much more frequent maintenance trips, but is also costing me the expense of all that Wite-out® I use. :)

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment

I like the idea of folks who sign the one log and not the other. On one remote cache I calculated that 40% of the finds were cache log only. My defintion of parasite doesn't kick in until nothing is signed and the owner never knows the finder was there.

True! I simply prefer that they also sign the online log, but it is not a big issue to me if they do not.

Link to comment

I see logging online as a simple courtesy. The cache owner spent the time, money and effort to hid the cache. The least I can do is let him know I found it.

 

what if the cache owner hid the cache as a personal annoyance to me?

 

why would i want to admit i went and found it?

 

that's not my signature on the last page of the logbook. just try to prove it is.

Link to comment

I've done this, inadvertently.

 

This summer, I headed for a cache and thought the area looked familiar. I suddenly had a mental image of the cache container and its location. Sure enough, I found the cache exactly as I had imagined.

 

Turns out I found this cache a year earlier but didn't log it online. I flipped through the logbook and found my log entry from the previous year.

 

What happened?

 

I had hundreds of caches loaded into my GPSr and was on a roadtrip hitting them at random. Once I found a cache, I simply pressed the FOUND button on the display and headed off to another cache. THAT was the only record I had of finding the cache, and on a busy multi-find day I must have forgotten to press the FOUND button. Later, when logging my finds online, I just didn't remember this one!

 

I imagine variations of this happen all the time. Forgetting to press FOUND on the GPSr. Or, forgetting to check the FOUND box in CACHEMATE. Etc, Etc.

 

Oh well, my memory just isn't what it used to be. Maybe I actually found several hundred, or thousand more caches than I logged online???

Link to comment

I've done this, inadvertently.

 

This summer, I headed for a cache and thought the area looked familiar. I suddenly had a mental image of the cache container and its location. Sure enough, I found the cache exactly as I had imagined.

 

Turns out I found this cache a year earlier but didn't log it online. I flipped through the logbook and found my log entry from the previous year.

 

What happened?

 

I had hundreds of caches loaded into my GPSr and was on a roadtrip hitting them at random. Once I found a cache, I simply pressed the FOUND button on the display and headed off to another cache. THAT was the only record I had of finding the cache, and on a busy multi-find day I must have forgotten to press the FOUND button. Later, when logging my finds online, I just didn't remember this one!

 

I imagine variations of this happen all the time. Forgetting to press FOUND on the GPSr. Or, forgetting to check the FOUND box in CACHEMATE. Etc, Etc.

 

Oh well, my memory just isn't what it used to be. Maybe I actually found several hundred, or thousand more caches than I logged online???

This is a perfect example of why paperless caching is a huge problem with this game and should be BANNED! It allows cachers to easily lose track of what they have or have not found. :) Kill another tree! Keep the toner cartridge manufacturers in business! It is your patriotic duty! :D

Link to comment

I agree on this matter.

 

Creating phony logs is a problem, for sure! It's a serious crime to the geocaching community that must be stopped. But, it's a risk the site has decided to take. You see, this sport being a technology based one, logging online is a small part of the sport that can bring fun and get those creative juices flowing. Some people, I know, can be very, well, lazy in their website posting. Some give in to the temptation to let their cache find number rule over them and put a completely effortless TFTC. This completely disregards the reason for online logging. Yes, it's important to keep a history of the caches you have found, but it's also a beneficial for the person who hid the cache as well as you, the person who found it. For you, you will eventually look back on your logs and those logs that you types will bring back memories. That is if you write good , descriptive logs about your hunt. What I mean by this is explain hazards, is it a good cahce, how did you get there, what did you do there etc. Those are good quality things that benefit the hider by letting them know what they can do to treat their cache and you by giving you a good online history. You see, logging online is very important and a few phony logs must be risked. That's why we have log books, if they log it online and don't sign the book, the owner deletes it. It's a simple form of maintenance that can really, really make a difference in the community.

 

Now for those who do not log their online logs, what wrong? You must not be dedicated enough to provide good quality information which I stated above and also add to you cache count. It's your duty and your responsibility to log this log online to complete your hunt. Don't worry if you can't write or are to lazy, a few good informatic sentences will suffice. Just a little not saying you were there, what you did, how you got there and thank you. It's as easy as that. IF you are not willing to do this, it's like only half caching, or two thirds caching, whichever you prefer. Complete your duty and log your caches.

 

I’m sorry this was a bit all over, but this is how I feel about the matter.

Link to comment

what if the cache owner hid the cache as a personal annoyance to me?

I'm working on it!

 

Step 1. Move to Vermont so my cache doesn't get denied because it's a vacation cache.

 

Step 2. Scope out the most poison ivy infested guardrail near a landfill that I can possibly find.

 

Step 3. Create a cache page with a LOT of typos and grammatical errors.

 

Step 4. Sit back while laughing like a mad scientist and wait for flask to find it. :):D

Link to comment

what if the cache owner hid the cache as a personal annoyance to me?

I'm working on it!

 

Step 1. Move to Vermont so my cache doesn't get denied because it's a vacation cache.

 

Step 2. Scope out the most poison ivy infested guardrail near a landfill that I can possibly find.

 

Step 3. Create a cache page with a LOT of typos and grammatical errors.

 

Step 4. Sit back while laughing like a mad scientist and wait for flask to find it. :):D

 

Wonderful plan! Or, you could just contact the owner, see if they will have sympathy on you. Then you would contact the reviewer. Or...you could just post a note. :D But that above plan would work :D

By the way, the server spit another post on you.

Link to comment

Folks, it seems that I owe all of you who have posted here -- and the entire geocaching community -- a sincere and heartfelt apology. It seems, based both upon the progress of this thread and the outraged reaction of the geocaching community (judging from the PMs and emails that I have received since starting this thread), that I have inadvertently opened a thread about the most controversial and most-despised practice in the history of geocaching, namely, the practice of signing the logbook and failing to file an online find log. While it is true that the topic of fake find logs is somewhat controversial and somewhat divisive, and has led to many angst-filled threads, the current topic of signing the logbook but refusing to log an online find has proven to be at least one hundred times ore powerful in acting as a lightning rod for controversy, hostility, angst and bickering. Judging from the horrid angst-filled posts that precede this post, I would venture a guess that this current topic (i.e., that to which this thread is devoted) is the most divisive and most controversial practice in the history of geocaching.

 

I apologize for all the angst and, while I am sure that many of us will receive death threats for having raised this most despised and most-reviled of topics, I am sure that later generations of geocachers will remember our efforts to air this despicable and evil practice (i.e., of signing the logbook but failing to find an online log) with gratitude and reverence.

 

Please, carry on...

 

Oh, c'mon, the response can't be that bad. No one has called anyone a P.S.R. yet. :)

Link to comment

Only time I see it as an issue is when they take bugs/coins and don't log them online.

 

Course, I also think the whole "these items in this cache" online are just a bad idea anyway.. makes it real easy for magpies to work on their "secret" collections.

 

I _always_ log them online. There are a few times I couldn't sign the log at the cache (wet, full, not even there, etc), but I don't think I've ever signed a log at a cache, and not logged it online.

Link to comment

Someone wrote to point out that there is one thing worse than signing the logbook but failing to log online -- namely, forming an opinion about something but failing to post it in the forums.

 

I have deleted that post. It is dangerous thinking.

 

This post has been edited by Keystone: Today, 9;34 PM

Cut it out!

Edited by Trinity's Crew
Link to comment

what if the cache owner hid the cache as a personal annoyance to me?

I'm working on it!

 

Step 1. Move to Vermont so my cache doesn't get denied because it's a vacation cache.

 

Step 2. Scope out the most poison ivy infested guardrail near a landfill that I can possibly find.

 

Step 3. Create a cache page with a LOT of typos and grammatical errors.

 

Step 4. Sit back while laughing like a mad scientist and wait for flask to find it. :):D

 

very flattering, but it's been done already.

Link to comment

what if the cache owner hid the cache as a personal annoyance to me?

I'm working on it!

 

Step 1. Move to Vermont so my cache doesn't get denied because it's a vacation cache.

 

Step 2. Scope out the most poison ivy infested guardrail near a landfill that I can possibly find.

 

Step 3. Create a cache page with a LOT of typos and grammatical errors.

 

Step 4. Sit back while laughing like a mad scientist and wait for flask to find it. :D:D

 

very flattering, but it's been done already.

Darn! A day late and a dollar short, as usual! :):):D
Link to comment

I know a cacher who has found thousands of caches all over the world and hasn't logged any of them online.

 

I'm pretty sure this person is a serial killer who doesn't want his caching activities to be traceable when the authorities close in on him.

 

He's a nice guy in a Lester Long sorta way. I like the guy, but I'm also really nice to him so he won't kill me and eat my liver. :)

 

This is Lester Long from the movie Clay Pidgeons:

vaughn1.jpg

Link to comment

I've have stated many times in the forum that when I am doing cache maintenance, I check the physical log book against the online logs and cross out the names in the physical log book of those that don't log online.

 

Don't tell me it doesn't matter. The geocaching rules are clear about the importance of the online log:

 

1. If you take something from the cache, leave something of equal or greater value.

2. Write about your find in the cache logbook.

3. Log your experience at www.geocaching.com.

 

The illegal practice of signing physical logs and not logging online not only requires me to make much more frequent maintenance trips, but is also costing me the expense of all that Wite-out® I use. :D

Yeah, seems kind of selfish doesn't it. :)

Link to comment
I see logging online as a simple courtesy. The cache owner spent the time, money and effort to hid the cache. The least I can do is let him know I found it.
Actually, to try to get serious for just a moment, I do fully agree with you, and I have said this before on the forums! What I seem to notice is that lame urban micros seem to own very few log sigs which are not accompanied by online find logs, but that rural and wilderness caches, and particularly moderately extreme (i.e., long or difficult hike or scramble up a nasty hillside) wilderness caches, seem to exhibit a much higher percentage of such logs. Personally, I would prefer that folks do file online find logs for my caches. But, having said that, I do not get bent out of shape when they fail to do so.

Very interesting observation. I wonder why that is.

Link to comment

I've have stated many times in the forum that when I am doing cache maintenance, I check the physical log book against the online logs and cross out the names in the physical log book of those that don't log online.

 

Don't tell me it doesn't matter. The geocaching rules are clear about the importance of the online log:

 

1. If you take something from the cache, leave something of equal or greater value.

2. Write about your find in the cache logbook.

3. Log your experience at www.geocaching.com.

 

The illegal practice of signing physical logs and not logging online not only requires me to make much more frequent maintenance trips, but is also costing me the expense of all that Wite-out® I use. :laughing:

 

"illegal"? Wow. The cops are gunna come get me?

 

Seems some take this much more seriously than others.. wow.

Link to comment

If people see my name in a physical logbook and not online for any cache out there (although I have no idea who has enough free time to check this) then they should know that it wasn't me that signed the logbook. It was friend(s) joking around with me because they knew that I wouldn't sign the logbook because I didn't get this -> :laughing: when I found it. My philosophy is simple. Put this -> :laughing: on my face and I will put this -> :D on your cache page!

Link to comment

I've have stated many times in the forum that when I am doing cache maintenance, I check the physical log book against the online logs and cross out the names in the physical log book of those that don't log online.

 

Don't tell me it doesn't matter. The geocaching rules are clear about the importance of the online log:

 

1. If you take something from the cache, leave something of equal or greater value.

2. Write about your find in the cache logbook.

3. Log your experience at www.geocaching.com.

 

The illegal practice of signing physical logs and not logging online not only requires me to make much more frequent maintenance trips, but is also costing me the expense of all that Wite-out® I use. :laughing:

 

"illegal"? Wow. The cops are gunna come get me?

 

Seems some take this much more seriously than others.. wow.

I think he was joking. :laughing: But Tozainamboku, in case you're not, I think I can get you a deal on a 55 gallon drum of Wite-out®.

Edited by Trinity's Crew
Link to comment
I've have stated many times in the forum that when I am doing cache maintenance, I check the physical log book against the online logs and cross out the names in the physical log book of those that don't log online.

 

Don't tell me it doesn't matter. The geocaching rules are clear about the importance of the online log:

 

1. If you take something from the cache, leave something of equal or greater value.

2. Write about your find in the cache logbook.

3. Log your experience at www.geocaching.com.

 

The illegal practice of signing physical logs and not logging online not only requires me to make much more frequent maintenance trips, but is also costing me the expense of all that Wite-out® I use. :laughing:

"illegal"? Wow. The cops are gunna come get me?

 

Seems some take this much more seriously than others.. wow.

I felt a mild tensile stress in one, but not the other, of my ambulation appendages when I read Toz’s post.

 

Didn't you?

Link to comment
Give this some thought.

 

What if people never sign the logbook, OR log online?

That's how I used to play. I started caching the week Dave Ulmer hid the very first Stash. I found it but never signed the logbook in the bucket nor did I mention it online anywhere. I also failed to sign the logbooks and log online for the next few years for any of the thousands of caches I probably found.

 

At some point in 2003 I broke down and started logging both, and it's more fun to me this way so I've kept doing it.

 

Me too.

 

On my admittedly small geocache smilie count (456). I have found 3 memorable caches that had a log written on the paper but never was logged online. The first was someone that signed TATE on a 5/5 near Moose Lake. The second was at PMOGUY's Swimming Hole and was signed by none other than Dave Ulmer

"father of geocaching" as he signed it. The third was on a cache on the south side of Odell Lake on a cache that I was going for FTF on about a month after it was hidden. The log was signed by BK who said he never logs online and doesn't have an account under that name.

When I logged each of these caches online, I reported the signed name so that the cache owner knew someone found their cache that didn't log online.

If everyone who encounters this situation handles it as I did, maybe some who don't log online will start.

Link to comment
I do know of a few cachers who have refused to log certain caches online and opted to only write a note for various reasons.

I stopped because at some point in my caching career, I started asking myself 'why am I logging caches that I don't enjoy? What's the point? I have absolutely nothing good to say about this cache and I could care less about a smiley.' ... To me it's all about the experience.

My philosophy is simple. Put this -> :laughing: on my face and I will put this -> :laughing: on your cache page!

Otherwise you won't log the cache online?

 

The 'Found It' log is not intended to be used as an approval rating; the only purpose of a 'Found It' log is to document that you found the cache.

 

One could make the argument, then, that your unapproved and improvised "philosophy" is an abuse of the feature; that you are in fact 'bogus logging' when you refuse to web-log certain finds based purely on your own personal aesthetic standards.

 

Of course I’m not presenting that as my viewpoint; your kind of bogus logging doesn’t bother me any more than the other kind. I’m just saying one could make that argument—and that if one did make that argument, one would have made a pretty dadgum good point. IF the other arguments of the anti-bogus-log preachers are to be accepted, that is.

Link to comment
Give this some thought.

 

What if people never sign the logbook, OR log online?

That's how I used to play. I started caching the week Dave Ulmer hid the very first Stash. I found it but never signed the logbook in the bucket nor did I mention it online anywhere. I also failed to sign the logbooks and log online for the next few years for any of the thousands of caches I probably found.

 

At some point in 2003 I broke down and started logging both, and it's more fun to me this way so I've kept doing it.

 

Me too.

 

On my admittedly small geocache smilie count (456). I have found 3 memorable caches that had a log written on the paper but never was logged online. The first was someone that signed TATE on a 5/5 near Moose Lake. The second was at PMOGUY's Swimming Hole and was signed by none other than Dave Ulmer

"father of geocaching" as he signed it. The third was on a cache on the south side of Odell Lake on a cache that I was going for FTF on about a month after it was hidden. The log was signed by BK who said he never logs online and doesn't have an account under that name.

When I logged each of these caches online, I reported the signed name so that the cache owner knew someone found their cache that didn't log online.

If everyone who encounters this situation handles it as I did, maybe some who don't log online will start.

 

What, exactly is it going to change? If I find your cache, and sign the logbook, I found the bloody thing. Whether or not you furiously scribble my name out of your book, or make voodoo doll of my caching name and stick pins in it, or WHATEVER, I still found the cache.

 

Seems to me a lot of flibbertygibbing in the wind goin on here. I find caches to find caches. Once I'm there, sign the log, and off, I don't _care_ if the name gets scratched out. They all do when the log gets replaced anyway!

 

Man oh man. Let me ask this. In what way does it hurt _YOU_ that people sign the log and don't sign online? Simply that no one has touched the cache in a while online? Most folks with caches I know wait _until_ somebody posts a DNF or two, or a maintenace needed request, before tearing off across the back 40 to check on their precious.

 

Just my .02, but I think some folk out there (no one in particular) might take this all a bit personally, and ascribe a bit too much "power" to counts. Just go have fun. Do what you want, let others do what they want.

 

Unless they are stealing coins/bugs. In that case, disembowel em and leave them as a warning.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 1
×
×
  • Create New...