Local cacher logging finds online -- but no signature to be found in physical log book.

[+swaninwa]

It was purely by accident that we noticed that a local cacher with pretty big stat numbers has logged several of the areas finds online but not signed the physical logs inside some of the caches.

 

We happened to be caching along a couple of days behind him and noticed it. At first we thought maybe he'd forgotten a pen, but we also found caches with pens inside that were not signed by the cacher. Since this cacher has logged several of the caches we own, we checked a few and have found that some of those logs have also not been signed. We were kind of taken aback.

 

What would you do in this situation? Would you contact the cacher and ask what the deal was? Delete his logs and say nothing? Leave them and not worry about it? I don't want to start trouble, but on the other hand, is it fair to log caches you haven't actually found? It's not something I normally police, but in this case it was something we couldn't help but notice. I'm baffled. What do you all think?

[+beejay&esskay]

I would contact him, remind him that my cache page says to claim a find the log needs to be signed, and ask him to change his find to a "note" or a "DNF". If he didn't, I'd delete the "find".

[+Tequila]

Ask for an explanation and delete if you are not happy with it.

 

This is why I quit logging my finds online. The numbers hunters make the whole thing silly.

[+webscouter.]

Also be open to the idea that he might indicate that he cannot sign the log due to arthritis or something of than nature. I would send a polite e-mail asking him about your caches. If he offers a satisfactory explanation then forget it and go on. If he doesn't you can let him know that you are deleting the logs and the reason behind the deletions.

[+Rockin Roddy]

Ask for an explanation and delete if you are not happy with it.

 

This is why I quit logging my finds online. The numbers hunters make the whole thing silly.

 

Someone else's lack of signing somehow detracted from this activity enough to make you not want to log caches anymore?? How?

 

As to the OP, do whatever you feel you need to do, I personally wouldn't worry about it either way!

[+Kit Fox]

I've heard from a few cachers in the "top ten" based on total number of finds, that perhaps someone in the "top 3" have been known to visit a town, find 75% of the caches, in an area, then log 100% of the caches as finds.

 

Your example will be defended on this forum as, "someone playing their own game," and "It doesn't hurt you, why do you care?"

[jholly]

Well the recent guideline changes has codified signing the log ....

 

Geocaches can be logged online as Found once the physical log has been signed.

 

And under the cache maintainance guideline we see

 

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.

 

So I think if you delete the logs on your cache you are within your bounds. Now some will say your being a puritan, or what difference does it make. Well, I guess if it makes a difference to you that is all that matters. Personally, I sign first then log because it matters to me. But it does tend to make one wonder and certainly impacts your view of the person in question, doesn't it? Hmmm. maybe finding DO NOT BLOCK THE GATE just got easier ...

 

Do I care if you delete the log? nope. Do I care if you don't delete the log? probably not, it is your decision. And personally I don't think the person that did not sign the log is going to make much of a stink about it. It is kind of hard to squeak with your pair when the other person has four of a kind.

 

Jim

[+Renegade Knight]

.... What do you all think?

Since y'all asked. Personally if they found it I'm happy. I like if they log online or off, or both, but the physical log isn't the cache to me. It's nice to read it when I pull the cache, especially for the folks who don't log online, but it's not one of my rules that you have to sign the cache log.

[+Wooden Cyclist]

If that cacher logs false finds on caches that you own, delete them.

 

 

If you don't own the caches ignore them. What difference does it make?

 

 

Go have your fun and don't worry about them.

[+TexasGringo]

I don't care if someone wants to fake a find on one of my caches...if that is the way they want to play...then so be it.

 

I just make sure my caches are maintained for the Real Geocachers.

[+swaninwa]

Thanks for all the feedback everyone. I created this post just before I left work for the day, and by the time I hit the store and drove home I had decided what I was going to do. And that's nothing.

 

I actually sat next to this person at an event 4 - 5 months ago, and for the record they are not handicapped or arthritic in any way that would physically keep them from signing the log. It does appear to me that they might be cheating. They signed the easier ones, but not the tougher ones. Does it bother me? Yes, because I don't like cheaters.

 

Will I lose sleep over it? Nope. Do I care enough to go check all of my other caches and monitor him? Nope. Is it important enough to me to make an issue out of it and then create bad vibes that will make us both uncomfortable at future events? Nope.

 

Will I look at them differently next time I see them? You bet I will. I sign every log book in every cache because it's important to me. It's called honesty.

 

And who knows, while not handicapped, maybe there IS some strange, unknown reason that I never thought of that would explain things. Or maybe not. In the interest of kindness I'll try to give him the benefit of the doubt.

[+fairyhoney]

And IF this is the "he" that it appears to be , If you delete his logs "he" just may delete your legit logs in spite.

[+W7WT]

No, I don't think it is that person. I have been doing a little detective work and I don't think either of us know this person. I am sure we have some cheaters here in Kitsap County but the person they are talking about is not a resident of this county. I would be upset if it was someone that I know and respect. Of course, I am probably wrong. Dick

[+swaninwa]

I really enjoyed sitting next to this person an chatting with them at the event. As I said, I've decided that forgetting about it and giving this person the benefit of the doubt is the best for all concerned. Thanks for all the feedback everyone...

[+Kiyojohn]

I have no idea who swaniwa is claiming as an "arm chair cacher". They seem to have the evidence.

 

I do feel strongly that if a cacher does not find the physical cache and leave some proof that they had found it, they are NOT entitled to log it on line. Even if a log book is ruined or full, we at least sign "KJ" on a slip of paper and place it in the cache. We are very proud to know that our signature IS in or on every single cache we have ever found.

 

It's called "geocaching", NOT "computer caching" for a reason. If you think it's about computer caching, I might as well "leave" Kitsap County and zip over to New York and I will log 50 finds in the Big Apple, within the next 30 minutes. I'll have another 50 finds in Italy in another 30 minutes! All this, without leaving my living room. Kind of takes the fun out of it.

 

At the same time, I would not risk having this person or any cacher delete our own "legit" finds that we worked hard to get, because we exposed his or her "crime". I would hope that the cacher knows that he or she is a cheater and loses sleep over it.

 

At the very most, I would contact the person and nicely say; "Hey! It appears you forgot to sign several logs on caches you found. You might want to remember to do it in the future! Take care and happy caching". This would at least clue the cacher in that people are watching and some of us do take geocaching seriously.

 

Also; I have advocated for the disabled for the last 20 years. There are adaptive devices like stickers and pre-made cards with your signature that would help if you can't hold a pen. At least have someone contact the owner and explain that you couldn't sign the log, but DID find the cache.

[+Scubasonic]

The way I feel is that if someone is doing this they are only cheating themselves. After all the numbers are for my own personal goals and aspirations, and it makes no sense to cheat yourself. I would just forget it and move on.

 

Scubasonic

[+WRASTRO]

I would be curious to know who this is just so I can quietly and privately think a bit less of him/her. But I won't think about it anymore beyond this post. I like the fact that I like almost every cacher I have met. I don't really need to think ill of any of them. But I would be curious...

[+Rockin Roddy]

I have no idea who swaniwa is claiming as an "arm chair cacher". They seem to have the evidence.

 

I do feel strongly that if a cacher does not find the physical cache and leave some proof that they had found it, they are NOT entitled to log it on line. Even if a log book is ruined or full, we at least sign "KJ" on a slip of paper and place it in the cache. We are very proud to know that our signature IS in or on every single cache we have ever found.

 

It's called "geocaching", NOT "computer caching" for a reason. If you think it's about computer caching, I might as well "leave" Kitsap County and zip over to New York and I will log 50 finds in the Big Apple, within the next 30 minutes. I'll have another 50 finds in Italy in another 30 minutes! All this, without leaving my living room. Kind of takes the fun out of it.

 

At the same time, I would not risk having this person or any cacher delete our own "legit" finds that we worked hard to get, because we exposed his or her "crime". I would hope that the cacher knows that he or she is a cheater and loses sleep over it.

 

At the very most, I would contact the person and nicely say; "Hey! It appears you forgot to sign several logs on caches you found. You might want to remember to do it in the future! Take care and happy caching". This would at least clue the cacher in that people are watching and some of us do take geocaching seriously.

 

Also; I have advocated for the disabled for the last 20 years. There are adaptive devices like stickers and pre-made cards with your signature that would help if you can't hold a pen. At least have someone contact the owner and explain that you couldn't sign the log, but DID find the cache.

 

Entitled, legit, crime....WOW! We do remember this is a fun activity, right?

 

Have fun "zipping over to NY", you only cheat yourself and rob yourself of the fun, what a crime. You are entiteled to delete the finds if you feel the need to, I prefer to realize it has no effect on "my" fun! I'm glad I take serios stuff seriously and realize some stuff just isn't worth the worry!

[+Rockin Roddy]

No, I don't think it is that person. I have been doing a little detective work and I don't think either of us know this person. I am sure we have some cheaters here in Kitsap County but the person they are talking about is not a resident of this county. I would be upset if it was someone that I know and respect. Of course, I am probably wrong. Dick

 

Upset? Why exactly would you be upset?

[+Rockin Roddy]

Thanks for all the feedback everyone. I created this post just before I left work for the day, and by the time I hit the store and drove home I had decided what I was going to do. And that's nothing.

 

I actually sat next to this person at an event 4 - 5 months ago, and for the record they are not handicapped or arthritic in any way that would physically keep them from signing the log. It does appear to me that they might be cheating. They signed the easier ones, but not the tougher ones. Does it bother me? Yes, because I don't like cheaters.

 

Will I lose sleep over it? Nope. Do I care enough to go check all of my other caches and monitor him? Nope. Is it important enough to me to make an issue out of it and then create bad vibes that will make us both uncomfortable at future events? Nope.

 

Will I look at them differently next time I see them? You bet I will. I sign every log book in every cache because it's important to me. It's called honesty.

 

And who knows, while not handicapped, maybe there IS some strange, unknown reason that I never thought of that would explain things. Or maybe not. In the interest of kindness I'll try to give him the benefit of the doubt.

 

Oh dear, I am now worried about the rest of my community looking dow on me? Have you considered there could be a very good reason behind it and not just cheating? I'll share my latest round of non-signing visits, you can then look down on me all you please. On several FTF's, I have left the house so fast, I had forgotten the pen, some of those trips were on my motorcycle. Did it bother the owners, NOPE! Did I feel I cheated because I ddin't put scribbles in the logbook, NOPE! Would it have bothered me had my logs been deleted, NOPE...not a numbers hound and really not an FTF hound. I might or might not bother to visit again to rectify this, but I'm certainly less motivated to visit another cache by this owner if this were to happen! I've also found caches that, upon arriving, no pen in the container and we left ours behind (this happens, I'm not the one in charge of the pen, that was Tod's job and KAboom is just coming around to remembering most of the time).

 

I won't sign a nano, I don't care how much this bothers someone. Hide a container I can get the logbook out of and I'll try harder (if I remember my pen). I would much rather just open the container and prove to myself I had the right one than to try to pull that strip out, write my overly large scribble on half the strip and then ruin it when trying to replace it in the miniscule hole! I explain this to owners after the find and let them know I actually did them a favor by not doing this...most (actually, ALL so far) have agreed (at least in person, maybe they all look down on me behind my back??). BTW, I try to ALWAYS let the owner know if I didn't sign their logbook, I'm not trying to hide anything as I am not cheating!

 

I am also very laid back as an owner. If there's OBVIOUS evidence of armchair logging (such as multiple logs in multiple states over a limited time period), I'll call you on it and delete your find. Find my cache while never leaving California, you don't get the smiley, sorry! You were at the cache but just couldn't reach it? No problem, I will personally sign your name if you so wish (done this a few times now, happy to lend a hand when needed). I'd MUCH rather you not get hurt or not just leave my cache on the ground afterwards if you cannot reach well enough (I have seen people knock a cache from it's location only to find they can't return it). I'd also rather you didn't get upset and decide to ignore my other hides.

 

In the end, the only one the non-finder cheats is him/herself...if there was some kind of reward at the end of the game, I might see it differently, but there isn't! It's just for fun and entertainment, I can't comprehend how someone's lack of signing can hurt me. I didn't always feel like this, I was much like many in this thread...but I realized it's no skin off my nose! I know of a few people who MAY have cheated, some are among the top percentage of finders, some have made record find trips...do I think differently of them? Not really. If they want to cheat themselves, have fun. If you are having fun, how can you be cheating yourself though?

[H to the Bizzle!]

Delete, Delete, do you need a repeat? Delete.

 

No signing the logbook = no find in my opinion.

[+MickEMT]

Ask for an explanation and delete if you are not happy with it.

 

This is why I quit logging my finds online. The numbers hunters make the whole thing silly.

 

That's pretty much the way to handle this. Yes, there may be a valid reason he or she cannot sign the book such as arthritis.

 

Tequila, I can understand your point, but why let the numbers people ruin it for you. Yes, I'm one of NY's "Top 20" but it's really not about the numbers for me.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

It was purely by accident that we noticed that a local cacher with pretty big stat numbers has logged several of the areas finds online but not signed the physical logs inside some of the caches.

 

We happened to be caching along a couple of days behind him and noticed it. At first we thought maybe he'd forgotten a pen, but we also found caches with pens inside that were not signed by the cacher. Since this cacher has logged several of the caches we own, we checked a few and have found that some of those logs have also not been signed. We were kind of taken aback.

 

What would you do in this situation? Would you contact the cacher and ask what the deal was? Delete his logs and say nothing? Leave them and not worry about it? I don't want to start trouble, but on the other hand, is it fair to log caches you haven't actually found? It's not something I normally police, but in this case it was something we couldn't help but notice. I'm baffled. What do you all think?

I am assuming that you are sure that this phenomenon that you are seeing is truly one of fake finds, and is not simply due to the fact that perhaps the geocacher found the cache and signed the log under a team name and then later decided to log the finds online under her/his own account name. This phenomenon of logging hoax fines or fake finds seems to be a growing trend, and, if it were me (and this is true for most local geocachers whom I know as well), I would delete these fake finds in a second. I certainly would not bother to waste my time in sending the phony find logger a note of explanation, for he/she knows very well what they are doing, and they do not deserve any time or effort on my part. And, if the phony find cacher persisted in re-logging their fake finds, I would report them to Groundspeak, so that Groundspeak can disable their account.

[+obxnomad]

There's been several situations where I was unable to sign a log. Like everyone else, I forgot a pen, or had one that wouldn't write. Once I forgot tweezers and couldn't remove the log. Another time I could see the cache but had so many muggles around that it was impossible to sign.

 

I logged all of these caches as finds, but here's what I did. Honestly is important to me, so in several situations I took a photo with my phone and emailed it and my explanation to the owner, thus proving that I was indeed there. On the ocassions where I couldn't sign OR snap a quick photo I sent a description of the find.

 

After doing this, never have I had an owner reject my find AND I feel legit in claiming it.

 

IMHO, if you can't sign the log then prove to the owner you were there. If you can't do that you're cheating the game and yourself.

Edited April 21, 2009 by obxnomad

[+sbell111]

Well the recent guideline changes has codified signing the log ....

Geocaches can be logged online as Found once the physical log has been signed.

Folks, don't get too hung up on the bit about "the physical log has been signed". This guideline change is all about ALRs. Any redundant wording about signing the log is simply to place the ALR changes in context.

Edited April 21, 2009 by sbell111

[+Car54]

No signing the logbook = no find in my opinion.

 

This is also our practice. We've "found" caches that we couldn't retrieve - in one case it was frozen to the ground, but we logged them as DNF's because..........we didn't sign the log! While I respect the right of others to disagree with us, that's how we play the game. I *do* compare the logbooks with the online logs and the few times I've found a discrepancy, I've politely e-mailed the cacher and asked for an explanation. Once I heard "we were part of xyz team" - I let that log stand. Once I heard "I never sign the logbook" and once I didn't hear back - I deleted those logs. Never had any problems or repercussions from those actions.

 

YMMV

Mrs. Car54

[+StarBrand]

A polite note is in order. Ask them to clear up some "confusion" you have about the issue.

 

If you do not get a satisfactory answer - a second email asking them to change the log type or delete.

 

Finally - delete them yourself if necessary. Bogus logs if I ever saw any......

[+Frank Broughton]

If the gloves do not fit - you must FIND the dirty rotten low down GUILTY anyways. Or something like that I am sure. (Or was it a hat that did fit or was it the shoes?)

[+Mule Ears]

It doesn't happen often, but when I find that an online log isn't backed up by an entry in the logbook, I delete the online log. The cacher whose log is deleted gets a notification when the online log is deleted. If they want to appeal the issue, my email address is right there on my profile page.

 

I don't email in advance; it doesn't make any sense to me. The most plausible reasons or excuses are going to come from the scammers anyway. The only reasons that would sway me would be if the logbook were missing or inaccessible in some way that was not the finder's fault. Even in those cases, I'd expect the finder to leave some identifiable trace of their visit or to take a picture.

 

Understand that I'm talking about backcountry caches that require some effort to get to, and entitle legit finders to bragging rights. I don't have many drive-by caches, so clarity on this issue is easy to come by. As far as lame caches go, I don't give a rat's patootie if somebody wants to claim that they have lifted every lamppost skirt in Cochise County.

 

Regarding showing up for FTF without a pencil--the owner that allows such a log to stand is giving a gift to the finder. And probably making enemies of the FTF also-rans.

Edited April 21, 2009 by Mule Ears

[+Rockin Roddy]

It doesn't happen often, but when I find that an online log isn't backed up by an entry in the logbook, I delete the online log. The cacher whose log is deleted gets a notification when the online log is deleted. If they want to appeal the issue, my email address is right there on my profile page.

 

I don't email in advance; it doesn't make any sense to me. The most plausible reasons or excuses are going to come from the scammers anyway. The only reasons that would sway me would be if the logbook were missing or inaccessible in some way that was not the finder's fault. Even in those cases, I'd expect the finder to leave some identifiable trace of their visit or to take a picture.

 

Understand that I'm talking about backcountry caches that require some effort to get to, and entitle legit finders to bragging rights. I don't have many drive-by caches, so clarity on this issue is easy to come by. As far as lame caches go, I don't give a rat's patootie if somebody wants to claim that they have lifted every lamppost skirt in Cochise County.

 

Regarding showing up for FTF without a pencil--the owner that allows such a log to stand is giving a gift to the finder. And probably making enemies of the FTF also-rans.

 

Yep, the second to find for one of them even signed my name for me, they were so upset by it! Remembering correctly, I had my 15 year old son with me on the back of my motorcycle, it started raining just as we arrived and we were sopping wet. Oh, but I did break off a branch and stick it in the mud and stained the page. We found two that day. I guess not everyone is a puritan like some here and still understands it's for fun and stuff sometimes happens.

 

btw...as to one other poster, I never carry my expensive camera and I don't have a cheap one, but I always describe the scene in great detail leaving no doubt to the owner I was there!! I also either email first or right after I log depending on if I know the hider or not!

 

Oh and Mule Ears, check out many of my caches...while lacking mileage, most are in deep wooded adventure walks which promise scrapes and cuts and encounters with poisonous and obnoxious plants. If you can describe any one of them, I'm happy to allow a find!! I'd never delete unless you couldn't prove for me that you were there (but that also depends on whether I compare logs or not, I've got better things to do than to make sure my friends are not cheating themselves)!!

 

But, if I lived in your area and had this happen to me, I'd merely make sure I signed every logbook if and as best as I could and then just log the find on one of my archived events or caches. No need to worry you about whether I signed the log and I keep track of my find!

Edited April 21, 2009 by Rockin Roddy

[+Arrow One]

Some people make business cards on their computer with their caching name and sometimes a logo, and leave those in caches instead of signing the logbook, for what ever reason. Sometimes those cards are taken out, wet, someone collects them, etc... Depending on this cachers log, like, "easy find" for a cache you know is difficult, maybe there's something fishy going on. Personally, I would'nt delete anyone's log on that suspison. Its just that, "suspision", not fact. If it bothers you, check into it.

[+Sol seaker]

It was purely by accident that we noticed that a local cacher with pretty big stat numbers has logged several of the areas finds online but not signed the physical logs inside some of the caches.

 

We happened to be caching along a couple of days behind him and noticed it. At first we thought maybe he'd forgotten a pen, but we also found caches with pens inside that were not signed by the cacher. Since this cacher has logged several of the caches we own, we checked a few and have found that some of those logs have also not been signed. We were kind of taken aback.

 

What would you do in this situation? Would you contact the cacher and ask what the deal was? Delete his logs and say nothing? Leave them and not worry about it? I don't want to start trouble, but on the other hand, is it fair to log caches you haven't actually found? It's not something I normally police, but in this case it was something we couldn't help but notice. I'm baffled. What do you all think?

 

I've heard of people changing their log-in names and re-logging their caches. I know a friend who did it and didn't go back and re-sign with the new name. I suggested he do that, but he contacted Groundspeak and they told him to just re-log the finds and don't worry about it.

I'd suggest you contact that cacher and make sure it's not something like this.

Then for a really good time, you can check out the thread on the forums about cachers in Germany logging virtual finds in 3 states and two different countries all in one day. You never know what's going on until you ask.

[+sbell111]

I've heard of people changing their log-in names and re-logging their caches. I know a friend who did it and didn't go back and re-sign with the new name. I suggested he do that, ...

[janx]

So the simple answer is:

If the player logged a find online, but didn't sign the physical log, the owner has the right to delete the online log. This is supported by the cache guidelines.

 

Besides "cheating", there are plenty of plausible reasons for not having a matching paper log and electronic log. However, the rules say, SIGN THE PAPER LOG. If you didn't sign the paper log, and your online log gets challenged or deleted, it's your fault, and your problem.

 

It's really that simple.

 

For the record, I don't particularly care for signing paper logs (or trading). I'd much rather the cache had a "secret" ID number, that I would have to record into gc.com to log the find. In that respect, my view is akin to RK, the electronic log is the useful part (it's the easiest to work with).

[+Rockin Roddy]

So the simple answer is:

If the player logged a find online, but didn't sign the physical log, the owner has the right to delete the online log. This is supported by the cache guidelines.

 

Besides "cheating", there are plenty of plausible reasons for not having a matching paper log and electronic log. However, the rules say, SIGN THE PAPER LOG. If you didn't sign the paper log, and your online log gets challenged or deleted, it's your fault, and your problem.

 

It's really that simple.

 

For the record, I don't particularly care for signing paper logs (or trading). I'd much rather the cache had a "secret" ID number, that I would have to record into gc.com to log the find. In that respect, my view is akin to RK, the electronic log is the useful part (it's the easiest to work with).

 

Seems the hard-stance people view any logbook not signed is subject to the online log being deleted. Unfortunately, there are more good reasons for the logbook not having the cacher's name in it...new log which was replaced by a cacher who foud the other a pile of mush comes to mind right off.

 

I tend to give the cacher the benefit of the doubt and will not delete unless it's obviously a fake log! It'd take a lot to be obvious though, since I'm not one to check my logs against online logs! I think we're a bit more laid back here, not many really challenge a find!

[+Mule Ears]

I should know better than to get into a forum discussion with a man who buys his bits by the barrel, but a couple of inconsistencies in Rockin Roddy's posts deserve a response. One response

 

Roddy, you wrote:

 

On several FTF's, I have left the house so fast, I had forgotten the pen, some of those trips were on my motorcycle. Did it bother the owners, NOPE! Did I feel I cheated because I ddin't put scribbles in the logbook, NOPE!

 

That's what I was referring to when I said that the owner allowing the online log to stand was a gift--'no scribbles in the logbook.' In your reply, you clarify:

 

Remembering correctly, I had my 15 year old son with me on the back of my motorcycle, it started raining just as we arrived and we were sopping wet. Oh, but I did break off a branch and stick it in the mud and stained the page.

 

So you did sign the log, just with an improvised instrument in an illegible-but-identifiable way. I explicitly said in my post (#29) that I recognize such logs as legit. I'm not deleting logs on the basis of bad penmanship. Getting back to the prior post, you assert:

 

Would it have bothered me had my logs been deleted, NOPE...not a numbers hound and really not an FTF hound.

 

..but then in your response to me, you say that you'd skip logging my caches online and enter a false log on an inactive cache to balance the books:

 

But, if I lived in your area and had this happen to me, I'd merely make sure I signed every logbook if and as best as I could and then just log the find on one of my archived events or caches. No need to worry you about whether I signed the log and I keep track of my find!

 

That doesn't square with the 'not a numbers hound' assertion. I would think you'd just 'ignore' the cache to take if off your to-do list. What I'm trying to illustrate is how complicated things get when you start lawyering this simple game. Sign the book, log online. No rationalizations or workarounds required.

 

Sorry to have chopped up your posts like that; I copied and pasted them without modification from #20 and #30 of this thread.

[+tozainamboku]

So the simple answer is:

If the player logged a find online, but didn't sign the physical log, the owner has the right to delete the online log. This is supported by the cache guidelines.

The guidelines say

Geocaches can be logged online as Found once the physical log has been signed.

This is from the new ALR requirement so it didn't exist two weeks ago. It is of course going to be interpreted by the puritans as meaning if you don't sign the physical log you may not log the cache as Found online, but it doesn't say this.

 

The guidelines say

For all physical caches, there must be a logbook, scroll or other type of log for geocachers to record their visit.

The implication here is that they has to be a log to sign. Of course there are times when the log is not signable, e.g. log is soaked or log is missing.

 

The guidelines say

Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements.

There is no right of the owner to delete online logs because the physical log is not signed. There is however a duty of the cache owner to delete bogus and counterfeit logs. So the question comes down to what makes a log bogus or counterfeit. There is no further guidance from the guidelines, but in generally everyone agrees that if a person didn't actually find the cache themselves or as part of a group that found the cache an online Found It log would be bogus or counterfeit. How do you prove this? If a persons name is in the physical log you can be reasonably sure that person found the cache or was with a group that found it. So you'd be hard pressed to justify deleting a log where the cacher's name was in the log book. If the cacher's name is missing however, you'd probably still need some additional evidence they didn't find the cache. Perhaps the online log isn't consistent with one that would be written for this cache or perhaps the person has logged caches in several disparate locations on the same day.

 

Besides "cheating", there are plenty of plausible reasons for not having a matching paper log and electronic log. However, the rules say, SIGN THE PAPER LOG. If you didn't sign the paper log, and your online log gets challenged or deleted, it's your fault, and your problem.

The rules say

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.

These are not actual rules per say but an attempt to distill what geocaching is to a few simple instructions. They originate in part from the instructions that Dave Ulmer posted on the USNET for finding the cache that he hid. Since the rules say "Write about your find in the cache logbook", you could claim that a signature is neither necessary or sufficient. You should instead write about your find. The rules then say "Log your experience at www.geocaching.com. Based on this rule we have a big problem with "cheaters" who write about their find in the log book and then never log their experience online. For some reason we don't see many thread about these cheaters.

 

It's really that simple.

 

For the record, I don't particularly care for signing paper logs (or trading). I'd much rather the cache had a "secret" ID number, that I would have to record into gc.com to log the find. In that respect, my view is akin to RK, the electronic log is the useful part (it's the easiest to work with).

Your concern with coming up with a scheme such as a secret ID in the cache to prevent bogus online logs probably indicates it isn't so simple for you. It has been pointed out that such a scheme would not eliminate bogus online logs because people would find out what the code is from friend or find other ways to guess the code and log the cache. However for people who see geocaching as a simple game and not some competition where the one with most online Found It logs wins, there is really no need to fix the system. While all bogus logs cannot be eliminated, geocachers are pretty good a finding people who are out and out lying about finding a cache. Cachers who regularly post bogus Found Its are likely to be discovered. Groundspeak has been know to lock the accounts of people who continue to do this.

[+Rockin Roddy]

I should know better than to get into a forum discussion with a man who buys his bits by the barrel, but a couple of inconsistencies in Rockin Roddy's posts deserve a response. One response

 

Roddy, you wrote:

 

On several FTF's, I have left the house so fast, I had forgotten the pen, some of those trips were on my motorcycle. Did it bother the owners, NOPE! Did I feel I cheated because I ddin't put scribbles in the logbook, NOPE!

 

That's what I was referring to when I said that the owner allowing the online log to stand was a gift--'no scribbles in the logbook.' In your reply, you clarify:

 

Remembering correctly, I had my 15 year old son with me on the back of my motorcycle, it started raining just as we arrived and we were sopping wet. Oh, but I did break off a branch and stick it in the mud and stained the page.

 

So you did sign the log, just with an improvised instrument in an illegible-but-identifiable way. I explicitly said in my post (#29) that I recognize such logs as legit. I'm not deleting logs on the basis of bad penmanship. Getting back to the prior post, you assert:

 

Would it have bothered me had my logs been deleted, NOPE...not a numbers hound and really not an FTF hound.

 

..but then in your response to me, you say that you'd skip logging my caches online and enter a false log on an inactive cache to balance the books:

 

But, if I lived in your area and had this happen to me, I'd merely make sure I signed every logbook if and as best as I could and then just log the find on one of my archived events or caches. No need to worry you about whether I signed the log and I keep track of my find!

 

That doesn't square with the 'not a numbers hound' assertion. I would think you'd just 'ignore' the cache to take if off your to-do list. What I'm trying to illustrate is how complicated things get when you start lawyering this simple game. Sign the book, log online. No rationalizations or workarounds required.

 

Sorry to have chopped up your posts like that; I copied and pasted them without modification from #20 and #30 of this thread.

 

Well you see Mule Ears, I didn't do that mud/stick thing on all of the FTFs I have not signed the logbook for, I'm sorry my info confused you! On one, the STF DID make the signature for me, that's one I didn't sign!! And, my memory truly is bad due to a few head injuries (bicycle crashes), it had just come to me that I did use the stick/mud thing on one of those caches, so I noted it there.

 

Logging the find on one of my own caches would be so I can remember the experience, I'm not a numbers hound, but a person with a bad memory. Could I also log it as a note? Sure, but I don't think mixing up logs is best for me either, so I'd be more than happy to log the find as a find on one of my own caches and put in all the info.

 

This FUN activity isn't as cut and dry as you say it is, there's plenty of grey areas. Signing the logbook doesn't matter too much to me, it certainly doesn't prove I was there since anyone can do this (as noted by the STF putting my name in the logbook). NOT having my name in the logbook doesn't prove I wasn't there since there are several viable reasons as posted that my name might not be in the book (new book replaced by user, cache stolen etc etc). Some truly take that way to figuratively, and as I said, I can easily work around those who do!

 

What are you meaning...bits by the barrel??

[+obxnomad]

post removed because I'm in a good mood.

Edited April 22, 2009 by obxnomad

[+Mule Ears]

What are you meaning...bits by the barrel??

 

It's based on an old quote that's lately attributed to Bill Clinton: "Never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel." No ink here, just bits.

 

Listen, I'm with you that this is and should be a FUN activity. For me, however, the fun is enhanced by the simplicity of the rules. Find the cache, sign the book, log online. No lawyers, loopholes, favoritism, bailouts or insider trading. Introducing a lot of exceptions just invites real-world chaos into the game. Don't want it, don't need it.

[+StarBrand]

....

 

For the record, I don't particularly care for signing paper logs (or trading). I'd much rather the cache had a "secret" ID number, that I would have to record into gc.com to log the find. In that respect, my view is akin to RK, the electronic log is the useful part (it's the easiest to work with).

I keep meaning to buy that www.secretcachecodes.com domain name...........

[CoyoteRed]

What do you all think?

I'd ask for an explanation. If I didn't get one, then I'd delete. If I got one I didn't care for then I'd tactfully ask that the log be changed or deleted. If that didn't happen, then I'd delete. If I met up with him at any future events I think I'd find it hard to have a pleasant conversation with him. I find it hard to be friends with someone I don't respect.

 

Personally, I'm not going to lower my own standards to that of others simply to not make waves. I don't really care who it is, if it's a false find I'm going to question it.

[+Renegade Knight]

...I don't give a rat's patootie if somebody wants to claim that they have lifted every lamppost skirt in Cochise County. ...

 

There are some folks out there who would find that a right fine hobby that would keep them busy in ever larger OCD spirals.