Jump to content

DNF, hid his own, logged a find


Followers 4

Recommended Posts

Hello there. I just wanted to post a story about one of my caches to get some opinions and to find out if anyone has seen this before.

 

I have a series of caches hidden in a popular "rails-to-trails" area. The caches were all meant to be easy finds, but the 4th one in the series has proven to be more difficult to find than I had intended. It was published in late August of 2007 and has only had 17 finds logged, with 14 DNFs logged. The few logs may be partly due to parts of the trail being closed for a long time for restoration, and partly due to heavy snowfall in the winter making it extremely difficult to access. Anyway, apparently this one is tough. lol

 

The cache was found in September last year and not logged again until this year. One DNF in May and two in June. On 23 June a note was posted by an out-of-province cacher that said simply "Plan to replace this cache". I wasn't sure what exactly that meant. Was he telling me to replace it, or asking if I will replace it? I decided to ignore it for the time being and check on the cache the next chance I got. Later that same day I found out what his log meant. He posted a found it log saying that he and two other cachers had searched for 15-20 minutes, determined that the cache was not there, and placed their own cache as a replacement. Two of them logged found it logs for the cache that they placed. I visited the cache site 11 days later and found my cache still in its original hiding spot. I also found the replacement less than 5 metres away. I removed the "replacement", posted an owner maintainence log, and edited the cache description and hint a little to try to make it an easier find.

 

Does anyone else find this completely bizarre? I know geocachers sometimes help each other out with maintanence and replacement of missing caches, but wouldn't you wait for confirmation that the cache is actually missing?

 

Coincidently, I spent 15-20 minutes each searching for this guy's caches in the same area without success. I just assumed they were there and I didn't look in the right spots.

Edited by Canada4Life
Link to comment

Hello there. I just wanted to post a story about one of my caches to get some opinions and to find out if anyone has seen this before.

 

I have a series of caches hidden in a popular "rails-to-trails" area. The caches were all meant to be easy finds, but the 4th one in the series has proven to be more difficult to find than I had intended. It was published in late August of 2007 and has only had 17 finds logged, with 14 DNFs logged. The few logs may be partly due to parts of the trail being closed for a long time for restoration, and partly due to heavy snowfall in the winter making it extremely difficult to access. Anyway, apparently this one is tough. lol

 

The cache was found in September last year and not logged again until this year. One DNF in May and two in June. On 23 June a note was posted by an out-of-province cacher that said simply "Plan to replace this cache". I wasn't sure what exactly that meant. Was he telling me to replace it, or asking if I will replace it? I decided to ignore it for the time being and check on the cache the next chance I got. Later that same day I found out what his log meant. He posted a found it log saying that he and two other cachers had searched for 15-20 minutes, determined that the cache was not there, and placed their own cache as a replacement. Two of them logged found it logs for the cache that they placed. I visited the cache site 11 days later and found my cache still in its original hiding spot. I also found the replacement less than 5 metres away. I removed the "replacement", posted an owner maintainence log, and edited the cache description and hint a little to try to make it an easier find.

 

Does anyone else find this completely bizarre? I know geocachers sometimes help each other out with maintanence and replacement of missing caches, but wouldn't you wait for confirmation that the cache is actually missing?

 

Coincidently, I spent 15-20 minutes each searching for this guy's caches in the same area without success. I just assumed they were there and I didn't look in the right spots.

 

Some people help to the point of being a nuisance.

I found two caches inches apart. (yes, INCHES) and when I went to log my find I saw that someone had placed a similar "presumed lost, replaced the cache" log.

 

If your cache was still there then you just gained a free cache. If it were me, i would delete their "found" logs and let them know, politely, that they never found your cache that was there.

Placing and then logging is stupid but since there are no laws of the game then there's not much you can do about it.

Link to comment

Just because someone can't find a cache doesn't give them the right to put another one there. As a finder, if the cache was low rated & had a fair amount of DNFs, I could see how they would think it would be missing, but a 3 rating (if that's what it was when they tried for it) means the cache is kinda hard.

 

Editing to add that I would email each of them and tell them that you checked on the cache and your container was hidden in its original hiding spot and they didn't actually find the cache and trust that they will do the right thing (let their conscience be their guide). If they feel they didn't find it, they'll delete their logs. If they don't delete their logs, I'd leave them and forget it because I'm not a big log deleter believer.

Edited by Skippermark
Link to comment

Wait a minute... they had their cache published, while yours was still active, at approximately the same coordinates? That isn't going to happen, unless your reviewer is sound asleep at the wheel, which I seriously doubt. What is the "rest of the story"?

 

You missed the original point.

 

The DNFers dropped a replacement cache, not submitted a new one for review.

Then they logged their own throwdown as a find on the OPs cache.

Link to comment

Wait a minute... they had their cache published, while yours was still active, at approximately the same coordinates? That isn't going to happen, unless your reviewer is sound asleep at the wheel, which I seriously doubt. What is the "rest of the story"?

 

You missed the original point.

 

The DNFers dropped a replacement cache, not submitted a new one for review.

Then they logged their own throwdown as a find on the OPs cache.

 

KC was just leaping to conclusions again. :unsure:

Link to comment

Wait a minute... they had their cache published, while yours was still active, at approximately the same coordinates? That isn't going to happen, unless your reviewer is sound asleep at the wheel, which I seriously doubt. What is the "rest of the story"?

 

You missed the original point.

 

The DNFers dropped a replacement cache, not submitted a new one for review.

Then they logged their own throwdown as a find on the OPs cache.

 

Thanks indeed for the clarification. But in my opinion, they still logged an unpublished cache at the same coordinates as a published cache that they couldn't find. I have had a couple of instances where there was much evidence (swag, log pages, lids to caches, and stuff like that) where we put down a temp replacement, but always with a note to the owner that we replaced what we believed to be a muggled cache, and if we were mistaken, that our logs should be deleted. If I dropped a "throwdown" cache at every DNF I've had, there would sure be a geocaching mess in these parts!

Link to comment
If it were me, i would delete their "found" logs and let them know, politely, that they never found your cache that was there.

I considered that, but haven't really decided yet what I'll do with their logs.

 

Placing and then logging is stupid but since there are no laws of the game then there's not much you can do about it.

I remember when I first started hiding my own caches. I accidently posted a find on one of my own caches instead of a note. It wasn't long before someone emailed me and told me that was against the "rules." lol

Link to comment

I would delete the "find" of their "throwdown" cache, and politely email them telling them why your deleted their logs. With 3000 and 4000 finds each, they "knew" what they were doing.

I totally agree. Not working harder to avoid a DNF in this way shows laziness and is not in the spirit of the game/sport/activity.

Link to comment

I considered that, but haven't really decided yet what I'll do with their logs.

 

I remember when I first started hiding my own caches. I accidently posted a find on one of my own caches instead of a note. It wasn't long before someone emailed me and told me that was against the "rules." lol

 

From the cache hiding guidelines (emphasis mine)

 

Cache Maintenance

The cache owner will assume all responsibility of their cache listings.

 

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.

 

As the cache owner, you are also responsible for physically checking your cache periodically, and especially when someone reports a problem with the cache (missing, damaged, wet, etc.). You may temporarily disable your cache to let others know not to hunt for it until you have a chance to fix the problem. This feature is to allow you a reasonable time – normally a few weeks – in which to arrange a visit to your cache. In the event that a cache is not being properly maintained, or has been temporarily disabled for an extended period of time, we may archive the listing.

Link to comment

I've decided that I'm going to get a bunch of film containers and everytime I an't find a cache, I will leave one and log it as a found.

 

If the "angel cachers" didn't sign the OPs log then its not a find. PERIOD! Even if the cache was gone and the angel cachers replaced a missing cache, they still never signed the original log.

 

Seriously, how can you "find" something after you deliberately place it?

 

Playing the devils advocate, maybe they just forgot to take the OPs ammo can when they placed their gladware cache.

Link to comment
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.

After reading this, I'm changing my "Let their conscience decide" statement to say that I would go ahead and delete their logs and then send them an email why.

Link to comment

I would delete the "find" of their "throwdown" cache, and politely email them telling them why your deleted their logs. With 3000 and 4000 finds each, they "knew" what they were doing.

 

What I consider throw-down is usually presented as non-owner maintenance. In my experience the log usually stays along with a "Thanks!". Especially by the community.

 

My position of "If you don't sign my log you can't claim a find" is not the popular one.

Link to comment

But in this case maintenance or replacement wasn't neccesary.

Exactly. If you find a cache and the log needs replacement or even if the container needs replacement and you have something appropriate, by all means be helpful and make the repairs. If you don't find the cache, you didn't find the cache. In some cases you may see a cache that is an easy find with no DNFs. Then all of a sudden there are several DNFs in a row. Some cachers will decide that this is enough for them to know the cache is missing and they will leave a replacement. Even if the cache is missing, how would they know how the owner hid the cache to begin with. Perhaps the owner has done a special camouflage job, or had found a unique way to hide the cache, or used a special container. People placing throw downs may feel they are being helpful. Posting an SBA if they think a cache is not being maintained is probably going to be more helpful.

 

Cache owners can help stop throw downs by rating their cache correctly. A 1/1 cache should not get a lot of DNFs in a row. And if the cache gets several DNFs, disable the cache and post a note that you are going do maintenance. Finally, feel free to delete the log of anyone who leaves an unsolicited replacement, particularly if you find your original cache is still there when you check on it.

 

Some times cache owners go AWOL and stop maintaining their caches. If the cache is really special, someone may try to adopt it. If the owner can be found and agrees, adoption is the best path. If not, previous finders may try to keep the cache going by doing the maintenance an owner should do. If nobody steps up to maintain the cache, then the cache should be archived. It does no good for the community if someone from another state or province is leaving new containers that they aren't going to maintained after they leave. These people may think they deserve thanks for doing a good deed. Instead they are just encouraging owners to abdicate their responsibility.

Link to comment

But in this case maintenance or replacement wasn't neccesary.

 

You did the right thing by checking on your cache. Since you were able find your cache without their signatures, and you found their "throwdown" cache, it is quite clear that they didn't find your cache.

 

Delete.

Link to comment

I saw the log of a a 15k+ find cacher who did this. He couldn't find the cache so he left an "angel cache". :unsure:

 

The term "Angel cache" is nothing more than putting lipstick on a clam. A lot of power cachers do this in the guise of "doing a favor", but it's nothing more than a self serving act that more often than not creates confusion for the cache owner.

 

I would delete their "find" without hesitation and thank them for the new cache container.

Link to comment

Delete their log, yes... but I don't think it's appropriate to take(steal?) their container. Yeah, remove it... but at the least offer to let them pay for the postage or offer to drop it in a nearby cache for them. Just cause it's on your turf doesn't make it yours.

 

Edit: Now that I think about this more... it occurs to me that they "gave" you the cache when the dropped it. Forget what I said. :unsure:

Edited by Arrow42
Link to comment

I saw the log of a a 15k+ find cacher who did this. He couldn't find the cache so he left an "angel cache". :unsure:

 

The term "Angel cache" is nothing more than putting lipstick on a clam. A lot of power cachers do this in the guise of "doing a favor", but it's nothing more than a self serving act that more often than not creates confusion for the cache owner.

 

I would delete their "find" without hesitation and thank them for the new cache container.

Yep. Delete and enjoy the email you send them explaining why you deleted thier bogus logs. What goobers.

Link to comment

I would delete the logs, too. Obviously they can't be inconvenienced beyond the 30 minute mark in their search. I've gone back up to 4 times and spent as much as 12 hours looking for one cache.

I would never just assume it isn't there, hide my own replacement, and log a find.

 

We found one cache that was a bison tube in a tree and located 2 tubes hanging about 6 feet apart from each other. About 2 years prior, someone had searched for it, failed to find it, and left a replacement. I guess all the finders in the meantime would find one or the other of them and stop searching once they found one of them, leaving the other still hidden. It was pretty funny that we saw some of the signatures from the online logs in one bison tube, and some in the other.

Link to comment

A couple of times I have replaced a missing cache and then logged that new cache as found but only with the agreement of the cache owner by telephone while I'm at the cache site and if we both think that the cache is definitely missing. This helps both of us because the cache owner doesn't have to do maintenance and I don't have to log a DNF and return another day.

 

In the situation of the OP I would adopt a halfway house approach by combining Skippermark's original thought with the majority which says "delete without further discussion". I would mail the "finder" saying that as he didn't find the cache perhaps he'd like to change his found log to a DNF. If, after a reasonable time, he hadn't then I'd delete it. I think this approach is less confrontational and therefore less likely to cause angst than simply deleting without prior discussion. Maybe I'm just kind :unsure:.

Link to comment

I saw the log of a a 15k+ find cacher who did this. He couldn't find the cache so he left an "angel cache". :unsure:

Makes you wonder, don't it?

Read the "Found it = Didn't find it thread " for over a thousand examples of shady cache finds.

It doesn't make me wonder. Numbers aren't even remotely comparable (in my mind) so why bother? Unless the "contest" is just see how many online logs you can complete. Play how you want. I don't care about counting the find, I care about messing with the hiders hide. Go mess with your own hides.

Link to comment

But in this case maintenance or replacement wasn't neccesary.

 

I see that the person's log is still there. Have you taken any action yet?

 

Incidentally, I would strongly suggest assuming the guy was really trying to do the right thing, whether it turned out right or not.

Edited by knowschad
Link to comment

But in this case maintenance or replacement wasn't neccesary.

 

I see that the person's log is still there. Have you taken any action yet?

 

Incidentally, I would strongly suggest assuming the guy was really trying to do the right thing, whether it turned out right or not.

 

LOL. This is funny because your signature says, "able to leap to conclusions with a single bound"

LOL

 

I truly wonder how many other caches these guys have done this on that they can't find.

One new container for every DNF has got to be an expensive way to cache!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Is that like buying your statistics? One has to wonder why they just don't stay home and post the bogus logs and save themselves the trouble.

 

I know of one instance where a cacher I know wanted to do something similar but didn't.

It was a cache where the owner hid something he knew no one could find and then wanted to gloat about the DNF's. The cache page was pretty obnoxious. I've seen a lot of evil caches, even named such, but this guy was over the top in obnoxious.

My friend wanted to hide a new cache there just so the guy wouldn't get his much coveted DNF's.

He didn't though.

 

Yeah, I'm in the "delete the logs" camp. They didn't find it.

Link to comment

Is that like buying your statistics? One has to wonder why they just don't stay home and post the bogus logs and save themselves the trouble.

Why must you assume that the motivation of people leaving replacement caches is to inflate their find count? Why don't you just take at face value that this action is done by someone who is convince the cache is missing and it trying to be helpful by doing maintenance on behalf of the cache owner? I can agree that one could just leave a replacement cache and not make a claim of a find, and I would agree that if you are just trying to be helpful you don't really need to get a smiley for it. However, some cachers use the find it log to mark that they have "completed" a cache, so they don't search for it again. If they are leaving a replacement they aren't going to come back and look for it later, so they mark it found and that takes care of it. (If they were a premium member you could argue that ignoring the cache would be better, but marking a cache found works for everyone and is a simpler way to to do this for many people). Some people may even be confused because they have the puritan mantra that if you sign the log you can log it found. Since they will often sign the log in the replacement they left they may feel they can claim a find.

 

I don't not get angry that someone who left a replacement cache got a smiley for it. If they were asked by the cache owner to leave a replacement and the cache owner let them log a 'Found It' for doing that, I would have no problem at all. My issue is how easily people will assume a caches is missing because they didn't find it (or perhaps because there have been several consecutive DNFs) and that they can figure out enough of what the original hide might have been from the description or a prior log that they can replace something they haven't found. They may feel they are being helpful, but more often than not they are causing problems like in the case of the OP's cache where they original container was still there.

 

There may be some people whose motivation to do questionable logging of finds is to get a bigger find count. But for most of the cases that are brought up there are much better explanations of people's motivation than that they are cheaters who want to have a bigger find count than you think they deserve. Stop obsessing over other people's find count and calling them cheaters because they sometimes claim something as find that you personally wouldn't. If you can accept that this is no competition, then you can accept that people may have other reasons that they claimed a find.

Link to comment

<snip>

 

Stop obsessing over other people's find count and calling them cheaters because they sometimes claim something as find that you personally wouldn't. If you can accept that this is no competition, then you can accept that people may have other reasons that they claimed a find.

 

Then after you have done all that...

 

... go ahead and delete the log anyway, because the cache wasn't found and the log wasn't signed.

Link to comment

Hello there. I just wanted to post a story about one of my caches to get some opinions and to find out if anyone has seen this before.

 

I have a series of caches hidden in a popular "rails-to-trails" area. The caches were all meant to be easy finds, but the 4th one in the series has proven to be more difficult to find than I had intended. It was published in late August of 2007 and has only had 17 finds logged, with 14 DNFs logged. The few logs may be partly due to parts of the trail being closed for a long time for restoration, and partly due to heavy snowfall in the winter making it extremely difficult to access. Anyway, apparently this one is tough. lol

 

The cache was found in September last year and not logged again until this year. One DNF in May and two in June. On 23 June a note was posted by an out-of-province cacher that said simply "Plan to replace this cache". I wasn't sure what exactly that meant. Was he telling me to replace it, or asking if I will replace it? I decided to ignore it for the time being and check on the cache the next chance I got. Later that same day I found out what his log meant. He posted a found it log saying that he and two other cachers had searched for 15-20 minutes, determined that the cache was not there, and placed their own cache as a replacement. Two of them logged found it logs for the cache that they placed. I visited the cache site 11 days later and found my cache still in its original hiding spot. I also found the replacement less than 5 metres away. I removed the "replacement", posted an owner maintainence log, and edited the cache description and hint a little to try to make it an easier find.

 

Does anyone else find this completely bizarre? I know geocachers sometimes help each other out with maintanence and replacement of missing caches, but wouldn't you wait for confirmation that the cache is actually missing?

 

Coincidently, I spent 15-20 minutes each searching for this guy's caches in the same area without success. I just assumed they were there and I didn't look in the right spots.

 

There are several of us in Utah who hide a lot, we are friends and just maintain each others caches without being asked to, I've stuck replacements out and logged it found for them and they for me... it just saves a trip for the owner. But I wouldn't do that to someone I don't know, because as we can see in this thread, it upsets some people.

Link to comment

I have repaired caches many times - new logs, new attaching wires/strings that are broken, new zipbags for the logs, etc. Of couse, this means that I found the cache. Unless I found actual evidence of the cache (like the log!), I would never place a replacement.

 

The only exception would be if the owner had posted a note asking the "next cacher" to do so. Otherwise, no. I'd assume it to be a DNF and log it as such.

Link to comment

I have repaired caches many times - new logs, new attaching wires/strings that are broken, new zipbags for the logs, etc. Of couse, this means that I found the cache. Unless I found actual evidence of the cache (like the log!), I would never place a replacement.

 

The only exception would be if the owner had posted a note asking the "next cacher" to do so. Otherwise, no. I'd assume it to be a DNF and log it as such.

+1. I usually just change bags, silca gel and similar stuff.

Link to comment

<snip>

 

Stop obsessing over other people's find count and calling them cheaters because they sometimes claim something as find that you personally wouldn't. If you can accept that this is no competition, then you can accept that people may have other reasons that they claimed a find.

 

Then after you have done all that...

 

... go ahead and delete the log anyway, because the cache wasn't found and the log wasn't signed.

 

OK, would you also, then, delete the logs for the two that innocently found the throwdown cache (presumably, of course) before it was removed?

Link to comment

<snip>

 

Stop obsessing over other people's find count and calling them cheaters because they sometimes claim something as find that you personally wouldn't. If you can accept that this is no competition, then you can accept that people may have other reasons that they claimed a find.

 

Then after you have done all that...

 

... go ahead and delete the log anyway, because the cache wasn't found and the log wasn't signed.

 

OK, would you also, then, delete the logs for the two that innocently found the throwdown cache (presumably, of course) before it was removed?

 

At the very least I'd send them a PM and let them know.

 

If I found out after I logged a "found it" that I'd found somebody's shortcut instead of the intended cache I wouldn't want the credit for the find. Unless the cache was truly missing and the CO informed me that the throwdown was basically the same type of hide- and they didn't mind me claiming the find.

Link to comment

See May 11, 2008 logs by myself, Da Bloodhound, and Bobcam on this cache Got an email of thanks from the cache owner. The temp that we left behind was indeed just a slip of paper in a film can, but it worked for the 5 days it took for the cache owner to get out and put out a replacement. Of course, we had very good evidence that we had actually found the remains of the cache, and hadn't simply dropped a "throwdown" because we didn't want to claim a DNF.

Link to comment

Now see I don't like to claim finds on caches that should be disabled until repaired. To me caching is not finding pieces of carp on the ground.

 

If you want to help the owner out and replace it, fine, that's up to you and I would probably never even know the difference if I was the next cacher to make the search. But being the person who found the trash, I'm not going to claim a find.

 

A buddy and I went looking for a 5/4 level cache and determined it had been muggled. You could even see the dust imprint of where the container had been sitting. It was an hour drive and when the owner confirmed it was missing he allowed us to claim a find. We both declined and made the trip back to sign the log. I do the same thing for 1/1 caches.

 

I don't think the effort of geocaching is enough of a reason for claiming a find.

 

Get permission before you replace a cache for an owner. Don't assume you know the cache is missing. Don't assume you know how the owner intended the cache to be placed. And don't assume replacing it is enough justification for claiming a find. And you dang well better not complain when I delete your find and toss your cache in the dustbin.

 

Oh by the way, I now own that 5/4 cache so I have a count for it in both my found and own stats.

Link to comment

<snip>

 

Stop obsessing over other people's find count and calling them cheaters because they sometimes claim something as find that you personally wouldn't. If you can accept that this is no competition, then you can accept that people may have other reasons that they claimed a find.

 

Then after you have done all that...

 

... go ahead and delete the log anyway, because the cache wasn't found and the log wasn't signed.

 

OK, would you also, then, delete the logs for the two that innocently found the throwdown cache (presumably, of course) before it was removed?

 

No, I wouldn't, but I'd probably drop them a note and let them decide what they want to do. They found a cache, they signed a log, all unknowing it was the wrong one... why penalize them for doing the right thing?

Link to comment

See May 11, 2008 logs by myself, Da Bloodhound, and Bobcam on this cache Got an email of thanks from the cache owner. The temp that we left behind was indeed just a slip of paper in a film can, but it worked for the 5 days it took for the cache owner to get out and put out a replacement. Of course, we had very good evidence that we had actually found the remains of the cache, and hadn't simply dropped a "throwdown" because we didn't want to claim a DNF.

Huh, our family just finished a 2000 mile multi day trip, we DNF'd just under 10% (not too shaby), replacing only 1. Even though most of the DNF's showed signs of a hide gone missing, we didn't put a throwdown everywhere, even though most of them were 50 miles from anything. One, we found typical geojunk and broken tupperware plastic with a freshly buldozed strip at GZ. After a little search to be certain, we put down a nice little well stocked cache well hidden in the same general spot. Getting home I notice it used to be a film cannister and emailed the owner right away apologizing for the mess up.

 

He thought it was funny and liked the bigger cache idea so he updated the description stating from my description that it most likely was gone anyways. But at least he understood our logic for the throwdown, and I was willing to delete the find if he requested it.

 

I get skeptical at anyone with a large number of finds and none or almost no DNF's. I too have had throw downs placed at my hides, usually with no note from the cacher they did that. Ticks me off if the cache is not missing, but what can you do.

 

Now, I did place a throwdown once, being sure it was gone, but the cache was within 2 feet and right out in the open - I felt real stupid. Caused me to reconsider the throwdown cache. A real learning experience. I went out the next week, drove 65 miles one way and found the original cache. The cool part was the CO gave me the opportunity to delete my own entry - which I did before heading back out.

 

I learn more about caching etiquette from my mistakes. You know, those bad caching habits you get into because you see it and think it's the norm. Some people just never learn.

Link to comment

Ok, a few things:

 

First someone asked about the logs still being there and if I had taken any action yet. I haven't done anything yet except for remove the replacement, and update my cache description a bit. My original thought was I would either delete the logs and email the loggers telling them why they were deleted or send them an email asking if they could change their finds to notes. I haven't contacted them yet. Too bad cache owners can't just edit the logs on their cache, but I imagine that would lead to even more problems.

 

Looking at the logbook in the replacement cache, aside from the two cachers who placed the replacement, there was one other couple who logged a find in the new logbook. I'll probably email them to let them know that they didn't actually find my cache, but I'm not going to delete their logs. It's not their fault, and if they want to go back and find the original cache that's great. I'll leave it up to them.

 

To me geocaching is about getting into the outdoors, going places I've never been before, and seeing interesting things. I'm not too concerned with the numbers or how my stats compare to others'. That said, I've never considered logging a cache I didn't find even though I did make it to ground zero and saw the view/landmark that the cache hider had intended finders to visit.

 

Finally, I want to make it clear that I'm not upset about the replacement cache. My feeling is the cachers who placed it had the best intentions and were just trying to be helpful. I have no reason to believe otherwise. I've had cachers offer to help me out with maintenence and replacement of caches before and that's certianly welcomed. I've helped out with a couple caches myself. I just found the situation with this cache bizarre given that the original cache wasn't confirmed as missing before it was replaced, and there was nothing to indicate I, as the owner, had abandoned the cache. Apparently this sort of thing is more common than I expected. Thanks to others for sharing their stories.

Edited by Canada4Life
Link to comment

But in this case maintenance or replacement wasn't neccesary.

 

I see that the person's log is still there. Have you taken any action yet?

 

Incidentally, I would strongly suggest assuming the guy was really trying to do the right thing, whether it turned out right or not.

 

There is enough of a history of people throwing down film cannisters when they do not find a cache that I rather doubt that he thought he was 'doing the right thing'. Anyone with that many finds should know better. I would suspect deliberately inflating his finds with a cheap film cannister. Pathetic, but it does seem to happen, and far too often. I would never throw down a cache just because I couldn't find the hidden one. (Could be why I have so many DNFs?) I have been known to replace logs, and even replace a broken container. But in those cases I have found the cache. These people did not find the cache, and the log should be deleted!

Link to comment

Just my observation on the subject, with no scientific or statistical study involved. Seems that every time this subject comes up the person placing the "throwdown" is a high numbers cacher.

 

I'd let the next finders make up their own minds as to change their logs or not. Hey, they are just the inocent bystanders in this.

 

Those who placed the cache would be deleted with a short, polite, but firm note. Sorry, but you didn't find the cache that was in fact there.

 

Had they found the trashed remains of my cache I'd let it stand. They did find the cache even if it wasn't intact.

 

Now, when all is said and done if they wanted to relog as a find despite my having deleted then well, it just isn't worth the headaches to get into one of those log-delete-log-delete arguements.

Link to comment

If a DNF is posted on my cache, I try to get out to it to check, and leave an "Owner Maintenance" on it to say it's still there.

 

As yours has been found very quickly after being DNF'ed, it's obviously a slightly harder cache!

 

If they placed their own cache after DNF'ing mine, I would -after checking it was still there:

Post a "Still there" on the cachepage, then either

a. delete their log.

b. email and ask them to delete their log.

 

There's a cache that's local to me, that has had a few DNF's, then had some one else 'throw down' a replacement, and it now gets comments about some cachers names not being in the logbook as cachers find the original or the replacement!

Link to comment

I had something similar happen. I emailed the person, explained that my cache was there and in fine shape, they just missed it. I asked them to delete their find log because they did not find the cache and they did. so I would suggest that, email them and ask them to delete their finds. Give them some reasonable amount of time. If they don't then delete them for them with the explanation that they did not find the cache.

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 4
×
×
  • Create New...