Logging an "Almost Found"

[+peajay84]

For those of you that found a cache that had "issues" like broken container, missing log, etc, etc - when you logged your Find or DNF did you also log a "Needs Maintainence"?

 

The CO of the situation in my original post hadn't logged onto geocaching.com for quite some time. He has NUMEROUS hides that are found often so I doubt he looks over every email he receives about his caches. Within hours of my logging a "Needs Archived", our reviewer had archived the cache listing. Had the first cacher that posted their "found where it should have been" logged a "Needs Archived" instead of their "find" it would have been archived a month earlier.

 

I just feel that a situation that left geo-caching in a poor light (cache confiscated due to damage done to property) might have been less so if it had been archived sooner to keep subsequent cachers from searching for something that was no longer there in an area where cachers were not welcome.

[AZcachemeister]

It's like saying 'I'm almost broke!'

Either you are or you aren't.

Either you did or you didn't.

[+Anno Lynke]

i have one cach i logged a needs maintenance because i found the top of a bison tube still attached to a fence, and questioned the owner if i should log it as a find

he replied 2 monthes later that he had fixed it and to log it as a find

i will sign the log next year when i am back that way

[+Chrysalides]

It's like saying 'I'm almost broke!'

Either you are or you aren't.

Either you did or you didn't.

Not a very good analogy. A better one would be "almost pregnant".

[Clan Riffster]

Ah, so someone who honors the wishes of the CO has less, or tarnished, character?

I had all this kewl retort type stuff typed up and just realized who I was replying too. Nevermind...

(Some folks will argue with a fencepost, just because they can. Silly humans...)

 

he replied 2 monthes later that he had fixed it and to log it as a find

Oddly enough, I've had several instances which were similar. I'd log a DNF, then (if I was sure the cache was missing), I would send the owner a separate e-mail describing my hunt, so they'll know if my DNF had merit. Quite often, I received invitations to log a find on the cache after they verified it had gone missing. The concept just didn't sit right with me, so I passed. If time & inclination bring me back, I'll hunt for it again. If not, it's just another absent smiley.

 

On a related note, while I earlier made reference to "accuracy", as if that were somehow important, I am at a place in my life where numeric accuracy is quite simply irrelevant. As of this writing there are about 3 dozen caches which I've located, signed the log and have no intention of ever logging online.

[+EvanMinn]

 

Ah, so someone who honors the wishes of the CO has less, or tarnished, character?

 

Makes me wonder, how is the view from that high horse?

 

I am having a hard time fathoming why a cache owner would "wish" someone would log a missing cache as a find.

 

I have heard of many, many instances of COs saying someone CAN log it as a find but never that that they really want them to; implying that if they don't they are going against their wishes. Again, I am having a hard time thinking of any reason why a CO would WANT that as opposed to simply being ok with it if the 'finder' wants it.

 

And if the owner is just ok with it, then NOT doing it is hardly going against their wishes.

[+bittsen]

 

Ah, so someone who honors the wishes of the CO has less, or tarnished, character?

 

Makes me wonder, how is the view from that high horse?

 

I am having a hard time fathoming why a cache owner would "wish" someone would log a missing cache as a find.

 

I have heard of many, many instances of COs saying someone CAN log it as a find but never that that they really want them to; implying that if they don't they are going against their wishes. Again, I am having a hard time thinking of any reason why a CO would WANT that as opposed to simply being ok with it if the 'finder' wants it.

 

And if the owner is just ok with it, then NOT doing it is hardly going against their wishes.

 

Yeah, it's odd, isn't it? Maybe the CO is all about the smileys on his cache.

Some want lots of DNFs which I can't understand (Hiding the impossile find).

 

Why ask why?

[+Hrethgir]

I recently logged an "almost found", but commented that in my DNF log. I found the cache container (a metal fencepost cap), but it was wedged in place and I didn't have the correct geotool (previous find used a small rock hammer) to get to the log. No Sign, No Find. I still need to go get that one, it's only like 500 feet from my place!

[+Jeep_Dog]

Well said, Riffster. Within the "Logging of Physical Caches" guidelines that state "Geocaches can be logged online as Found once the physical log has been signed", that's my interpretation and how I log my found caches, and how I manage online log entries of the caches which I have placed. I prize my integrity, and do not feel it worth compromising (perceived or actual) over a "smilie." That's just me, and lofty as well, and do not feel worth my time to push onto others.

 

The way in which a person logs can say a lot about their character, whether that "found it" be based upon a "I was in the general area, and here's a photo" or a 'thorough' log that states "TFTC" only, it is an glimpse of character. If someone doesn't care about the perception of their character, then I do not care about it either.

 

Ah, so someone who honors the wishes of the CO has less, or tarnished, character?

 

Makes me wonder, how is the view from that high horse?

 

First, the view is not much better. However, the air is much more fresh. I appreciate the judgement levied upon me, howerver. Very kind of you to share your observation.

 

Perhaps this will be more "proof" behind your assessment of me - the horse upon which I sit is so high, in fact, that I carefully manage that my forum posts do not outnumber my cache finds. I see this practice as keeping me balanced and happy with the geocaching activity. Pretty darn high high horse, eh? Yet, I care little to make any opinions about those whose posts outnumber their finds 10 to 1, for it is not about their "balance" for which I am concerned - it is about my "balance" that I comment.

 

Second, note that I stated "perception of their character." That is quite different from me, or anybody for that matter, actually stating that character is "less" or "tarnished."

 

Third, note that I further admitted that my interpretation is "lofty." I recognize it as such. Yet, I'm merely sharing my viewpoint, or interpretation, of the guidelines. I haven't asked anyone to abide by this interpretation, unless of course they do not sign the log on a cache which I own and claim it as a "find" online.

 

I happen to care about how my character, specifically the attribute of integrity, is perceived. This is not to say my character is flawless. However anyone else manages the perception of who they are is their business, and I will reiterate once again - if they do not care, then why should I? It is what it is, and I'm happy to leave it at that.

 

Finally, I do not understand how the "wishes of the CO" are pertinent to this discussion. If a CO "wishes" me to claim a find when I do not sign the log, then I do not log the "find" online. Their responsibility is to delete "bogus" logs, and they deem, for example, the DNF as "bogus," then they can delete away.... Similarly, if they wish me to write a "note" as opposed to a "DNF," yet I did not find the cache (owner on this cache asked me to change a DNF to a "note," but I track DNFs for my personal enjoyment, and this was indeed a DNF) they can delete if they find the DNF log "bogus." If they want "smilies" on their cache listing, there's plenty of folks willing to assist.

[+bittsen]

Well said, Riffster. Within the "Logging of Physical Caches" guidelines that state "Geocaches can be logged online as Found once the physical log has been signed", that's my interpretation and how I log my found caches, and how I manage online log entries of the caches which I have placed. I prize my integrity, and do not feel it worth compromising (perceived or actual) over a "smilie." That's just me, and lofty as well, and do not feel worth my time to push onto others.

 

The way in which a person logs can say a lot about their character, whether that "found it" be based upon a "I was in the general area, and here's a photo" or a 'thorough' log that states "TFTC" only, it is an glimpse of character. If someone doesn't care about the perception of their character, then I do not care about it either.

 

Ah, so someone who honors the wishes of the CO has less, or tarnished, character?

 

Makes me wonder, how is the view from that high horse?

 

First, the view is not much better. However, the air is much more fresh. I appreciate the judgement levied upon me, howerver. Very kind of you to share your observation.

 

Perhaps this will be more "proof" behind your assessment of me - the horse upon which I sit is so high, in fact, that I carefully manage that my forum posts do not outnumber my cache finds. I see this practice as keeping me balanced and happy with the geocaching activity. Pretty darn high high horse, eh? Yet, I care little to make any opinions about those whose posts outnumber their finds 10 to 1, for it is not about their "balance" for which I am concerned - it is about my "balance" that I comment.

 

Second, note that I stated "perception of their character." That is quite different from me, or anybody for that matter, actually stating that character is "less" or "tarnished."

 

Third, note that I further admitted that my interpretation is "lofty." I recognize it as such. Yet, I'm merely sharing my viewpoint, or interpretation, of the guidelines. I haven't asked anyone to abide by this interpretation, unless of course they do not sign the log on a cache which I own and claim it as a "find" online.

 

I happen to care about how my character, specifically the attribute of integrity, is perceived. This is not to say my character is flawless. However anyone else manages the perception of who they are is their business, and I will reiterate once again - if they do not care, then why should I? It is what it is, and I'm happy to leave it at that.

 

Finally, I do not understand how the "wishes of the CO" are pertinent to this discussion. If a CO "wishes" me to claim a find when I do not sign the log, then I do not log the "find" online. Their responsibility is to delete "bogus" logs, and they deem, for example, the DNF as "bogus," then they can delete away.... Similarly, if they wish me to write a "note" as opposed to a "DNF," yet I did not find the cache (owner on this cache asked me to change a DNF to a "note," but I track DNFs for my personal enjoyment, and this was indeed a DNF) they can delete if they find the DNF log "bogus." If they want "smilies" on their cache listing, there's plenty of folks willing to assist.

Must have struck a nerve.

 

I remember a recent thread where it was implied that those with more finds considered themselves more worthy than those with fewer finds. The word elitist came to bear often.

 

The number of finds has nothing to do with the ability to post in forums. But those with a lofty view tend to disagree.

[+Jeep_Dog]

Must have struck a nerve.

 

 

Probably. I've done an inventory on my nerves, and none seem to exhibit signs of any strike. Interesting.

 

I remember a recent thread where it was implied that those with more finds considered themselves more worthy than those with fewer finds. The word elitist came to bear often.

 

That is quite assumptive. I am quite open with the fact that I view the number of finds indicated on my profile and stats as nothing more than unimpressive at best. The number is what it is - it has meaning to me, and apparently has meaning to you. I am not so sure the content of the meaning is the same...

 

The number of finds has nothing to do with the ability to post in forums. But those with a lofty view tend to disagree.

 

I agree. Please re-read what I wrote. You will "almost find" that I merely pointed out that my "balance" or "sanity" with geocaching is an inverse correlation with the number of posts and/or threads to which I contribute. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

Now, back to the OP, an observation is that when I post a DNF, if I strongly suspect there's something wrong with the cache as opposed to my impressive inability to find a cache (which, quite honestly, I find more remarkable than my ability to find!! ), then I tend to clearly state that in the DNF log - well, actually, I state clearly regardless my observations. If I suspect something wrong with the cache, I'm more apt to send the owner a note as opposed to dropping a "needs maintenance" or "needs archived" on the cache listing as the first step...

[+Unkle Fester]

For those of you that found a cache that had "issues" like broken container, missing log, etc, etc - when you logged your Find or DNF did you also log a "Needs Maintainence"?

 

The CO of the situation in my original post hadn't logged onto geocaching.com for quite some time. He has NUMEROUS hides that are found often so I doubt he looks over every email he receives about his caches. Within hours of my logging a "Needs Archived", our reviewer had archived the cache listing. Had the first cacher that posted their "found where it should have been" logged a "Needs Archived" instead of their "find" it would have been archived a month earlier.

 

I just feel that a situation that left geo-caching in a poor light (cache confiscated due to damage done to property) might have been less so if it had been archived sooner to keep subsequent cachers from searching for something that was no longer there in an area where cachers were not welcome.

It depends, If I'm going to log a DNF, or if I think a cache needs maintenance (two seperate issues) I will read the cache page. If someone has already done a NM log, I will not, but reiterate the issue. If it has been a long time (depending on find ratio) I may just sent the local reviewer a note, its a grey area.

 

And there are tons of situations that leave geocaching in a poor light, it's an unfortunate fact of life that you cannot please all the people all the time. My town has asked me to review and possible archive a few of my hides because 1 particular cacher came through and destroyed the areas by pulling up a paved stone path, destroying a 30' or so swath of vegitation in a green space and pulled apart a fence looking for the caches. I understand why the city is kind of ticked. Oh, the caches are still there in great shape and the cacher never logged the DNF's. But he did send me an email about my sucky hides. Only the fact that I am willing to fix the damage - my cache caused - has kept the city from banning future caching.

 

I know it was one cacher because I drive past the hides every day and see what goes on. They've been out for a year with no problems before now.

 

The discourteous cacher is a bigger problem than an unmaintained cache.

 

But back to the question: If you feel it's a problem, send your local reviewer a note and explain your thoughts, and maybe ask them to look into it. They won't mind - and if they do, they will let you know from a geocahing standpoint what needs to happen.

 

Any reviewers care to comment?

[+hukilaulau]

 

Ah, so someone who honors the wishes of the CO has less, or tarnished, character?

 

I wish you would log "finds" on all of my caches. It would honor me if you sent me ten bucks for each one you log as "found." You WILL honor my wishes, right?

Now, seriously, I'm going to admit that yes, I question your character for using such a weak excuse. "The owner MADE me do it!" If you're going to claim a find on a cache you didn't find, at least step up and take responsibility for it.

[+bittsen]

 

Ah, so someone who honors the wishes of the CO has less, or tarnished, character?

 

I wish you would log "finds" on all of my caches. It would honor me if you sent me ten bucks for each one you log as "found." You WILL honor my wishes, right?

Now, seriously, I'm going to admit that yes, I question your character for using such a weak excuse. "The owner MADE me do it!" If you're going to claim a find on a cache you didn't find, at least step up and take responsibility for it.

 

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

You are funny person

[+Chrysalides]

I wish you would log "finds" on all of my caches. It would honor me if you sent me ten bucks for each one you log as "found." You WILL honor my wishes, right?

Now, seriously, I'm going to admit that yes, I question your character for using such a weak excuse. "The owner MADE me do it!" If you're going to claim a find on a cache you didn't find, at least step up and take responsibility for it.

10 bucks is a joke. I offer mine for only $5 each. For an extra $2 I'll sign your name on the paper log.

 

I don't think bittsen is seriously saying "the owner made me do it". It started with "the owner allowed me to do it (and I chose to)" and somewhere along the way something got twisted. Frankly, I don't see anything wrong with that. I don't see anything wrong with not logging it either. I feel this is a personal preference rather than an ethics issue.

[+bittsen]

I wish you would log "finds" on all of my caches. It would honor me if you sent me ten bucks for each one you log as "found." You WILL honor my wishes, right?

Now, seriously, I'm going to admit that yes, I question your character for using such a weak excuse. "The owner MADE me do it!" If you're going to claim a find on a cache you didn't find, at least step up and take responsibility for it.

10 bucks is a joke. I offer mine for only $5 each. For an extra $2 I'll sign your name on the paper log.

 

I don't think bittsen is seriously saying "the owner made me do it". It started with "the owner allowed me to do it (and I chose to)" and somewhere along the way something got twisted. Frankly, I don't see anything wrong with that. I don't see anything wrong with not logging it either. I feel this is a personal preference rather than an ethics issue.

 

To clarify since so many want to distort the truth. The owner ASKED me to claim it as a found.

 

And, as if it matters, it was my second time caching so I didn't know the "official rules" as outlined by the lofty horse riders yet.

[knowschad]

The number of finds has nothing to do with the ability to post in forums. But those with a lofty view tend to disagree.

 

Number of finds has nothing to do with the ability to post in the forums. Absolutely. We've seen that many times.

 

However, experience does have much to do with the vailidity of the answers, and that can sometimes be seen as a lofty view by those with less experience.

[aniyn]

I feel this is a personal preference rather than an ethics issue.

 

I'll agree with that.

 

I once found a "groundhog" cache that was missing it's log & log container. After I emailed the CO to confirm it was indeed the cache, I went ahead and logged the find. Is my name on the log? No. But I made the appropriate notes in my log, and that was good enough for both me and the CO.

 

I dunno, when I log a cache, I log "Found it" not "Signed it". That makes the difference in my mind.

[+Klatch]

I feel this is a personal preference rather than an ethics issue.

 

I'll agree with that.

 

I once found a "groundhog" cache that was missing it's log & log container.

 

I dunno, when I log a cache, I log "Found it" not "Signed it". That makes the difference in my mind.

OK, so what DID you find?

[+Jeep_Dog]

 

And, as if it matters, it was my second time caching so I didn't know the "official rules" as outlined by the lofty horse riders yet.

 

Look, brother, that's getting old.

 

Quite frankly, since you so well put words into my mouth, I'm surprised that you haven't figured out that I don't see ethics or morality as a requisite to geocaching.

 

There's folks here who are merely commenting on how they play, which I believe they are entitled here in the forums, and I for one have yet to pass judgement on anyone else's style. I merely conduct myself in caching - specifically in finding others' caches (to include taking the time to write logs online) as I would want done to mine. It seems some of the other folks who've been around the GC community for a while probalby feel the same way. Note the term "want."

 

No horses here, but if the shoe fits for Cinderella, I suppose I really could care if she wears it or not.

[+bittsen]

 

And, as if it matters, it was my second time caching so I didn't know the "official rules" as outlined by the lofty horse riders yet.

 

Look, brother, that's getting old.

 

Quite frankly, since you so well put words into my mouth, I'm surprised that you haven't figured out that I don't see ethics or morality as a requisite to geocaching.

 

There's folks here who are merely commenting on how they play, which I believe they are entitled here in the forums, and I for one have yet to pass judgement on anyone else's style. I merely conduct myself in caching - specifically in finding others' caches (to include taking the time to write logs online) as I would want done to mine. It seems some of the other folks who've been around the GC community for a while probalby feel the same way. Note the term "want."

 

No horses here, but if the shoe fits for Cinderella, I suppose I really could care if she wears it or not.

 

I had to look because I was sure that the post I was commenting on wasn't yours. Why would you quote a post that wasn't directed at you like you did?

[aniyn]

I for one have yet to pass judgement on anyone else's style.

Oh really?

I prize my integrity, and do not feel it worth compromising (perceived or actual) over a "smilie." That's just me, and lofty as well, and do not feel worth my time to push onto others.

 

The way in which a person logs can say a lot about their character, whether that "found it" be based upon a "I was in the general area, and here's a photo" or a 'thorough' log that states "TFTC" only, it is an glimpse of character. If someone doesn't care about the perception of their character, then I do not care about it either.

 

That seems pretty darn judgmental.

[+Jeep_Dog]

edit - disregard

Edited July 17, 2009 by Jeep_Dog

[+obsidianspider]

I've already found the remains of a cache that had been muggled. Emailed the CO and they said that I could record it as a find, but since I didn't actually find the cache, I didn't feel it was appropriate. The cache is now marked as down for maintenance.