Jump to content

Not reading cache page, still claiming find without signing Log


Autorita
Followers 1

Recommended Posts

...Personally I expect people to read my cache page. All the info is there. There is no mystery about the cache if you do.

 

Since they didn't access the cache, any folks who didn't sign the log, don't have a valid find. It's fair to invite them to change their find to a note, and log a find when they do sign the log. If they are unwilling to do so, zap the log.

 

Here! Here! I agree 100%. Until yesterday, when I would go out caching I would print the cache page for the caches I was planning on hunting and take them with me. (Now I have a Colorado) The only mystery is why someone would head out to find a cache without the following.

 

1) Reading the cache page

2) Looking at at least a few logs if not all of them.

 

I would nicely notify them that there find should be changed to a note and that they can add a find after the log has been signed, giving them ample time to do so, and then delete the logs if not done.

Edited by N7MFT
Link to comment

Here! Here! I agree 100%. Until yesterday, when I would go out caching I would print the cache page for the caches I was planning on hunting and take them with me. (Now I have a Colorado) The only mystery is why someone would head out to find a cache without the following.

 

1) Reading the cache page

2) Looking at at least a few logs if not all of them.

Without backtracking the thread, I don't recall that the OP knew whether or not the physical log had been signed. The OP should not assume that because there's no history of a particular person reading the cache page that the cache wasn't actually found. It could have been a group find.

 

Anyway, I'm still not paperless ... pretty much where you were in pre-Colorado days. And while I spend time checking out my planned searches before taking off, there is ALWAYS a chance (especially around here) of another cache popping up that I hadn't noticed during the initial research. Have you never hit the "Find Next" and discovered one you didn't have in your plan? In those events, it's pretty much "by the coordinates". If it is a traditional, I'll take a crack at it ON THE ASSUMPTION that it's a proper traditional. All I know is relative size/difficulty/terrain from the GPX data I've got. I don't want to find out that a traditional requires additional information to find when I'm already on site. That's a "?" cache.

Link to comment

I wouldn't be as hard up on deleting logs of people who didn't sign a Traditional Cache log but a puzzle cache, I believe, needs proof that your found it. That is part of the fun is seeing those who actually cracked the code and left their mark. Delete away I say.

The cache is listed as a traditional.

Link to comment
I wouldn't be as hard up on deleting logs of people who didn't sign a Traditional Cache log but a puzzle cache, I believe, needs proof that your found it. That is part of the fun is seeing those who actually cracked the code and left their mark. Delete away I say.
The cache is listed as a traditional.
I guess it is up to you, though I would have no problem deleting logs if became apparent that people were "forgetting a pen" a lot. Is there a pen in the cache for people to use? If so then you KNOW people are cheating.
They wouldn't know, because they can't open it. It's locked. (That's why it shouldn't be a traditional.) Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

Ive done several caches that get around gthe alr prohibitionn by offering a smiley for finding and signing and another smiley for doing something else. One cache asked the finder to do take a photo of a yoga pose with a certain feature in the background. No penalthy for not posting, just a second smiley. If the locked box is in a waterptoof container perhaps youo could provide w2 logs one outside the box one in.f people don't want to read the cache page there is no penalty.

Link to comment

Ive done several caches that get around gthe alr prohibitionn by offering a smiley for finding and signing and another smiley for doing something else. One cache asked the finder to do take a photo of a yoga pose with a certain feature in the background. No penalthy for not posting, just a second smiley. If the locked box is in a waterptoof container perhaps youo could provide w2 logs one outside the box one in.f people don't want to read the cache page there is no penalty.

 

Unless something has changed, the second smiley (on the same cache page) doesn't count towards your total.

 

(Running off to test this...)

 

EDIT: Wow. Never mind. Looks like multiple "found it" logs do count towards your total number. That is some kind of weird.

Edited by Castle Mischief
Link to comment

Ive done several caches that get around gthe alr prohibitionn by offering a smiley for finding and signing and another smiley for doing something else. One cache asked the finder to do take a photo of a yoga pose with a certain feature in the background. No penalthy for not posting, just a second smiley. If the locked box is in a waterptoof container perhaps youo could provide w2 logs one outside the box one in.f people don't want to read the cache page there is no penalty.

 

Unless something has changed, the second smiley (on the same cache page) doesn't count towards your total.

 

(Running off to test this...)

 

You can log multiple finds on 1 cache and it increases your numbers. This happens all the time on the few traveling caches that are still available. This is why some of the stat generators specify x# of finds on x# of unique caches. This then reflects those types of caches.

Link to comment

Ive done several caches that get around gthe alr prohibitionn by offering a smiley for finding and signing and another smiley for doing something else. One cache asked the finder to do take a photo of a yoga pose with a certain feature in the background. No penalthy for not posting, just a second smiley. If the locked box is in a waterptoof container perhaps youo could provide w2 logs one outside the box one in.f people don't want to read the cache page there is no penalty.

 

Unless something has changed, the second smiley (on the same cache page) doesn't count towards your total.

 

(Running off to test this...)

 

EDIT: Wow. Never mind. Looks like multiple "found it" logs do count towards your total number. That is some kind of weird.

 

Would you like a can opener for that can of worms?

TPTB have not restricted the number of finds you can have on a GC #. The moving cache is one possible reason. I will admit to having logged the same moving cache twice. The first time, I picked it up in NYC and moved to NE NJ. The second time I picked it up in Central Joisey and moved it to NWNJ. It's not as if it were in the same location... There are also some monthly events that use the same GC# over and over. Easier, I guess. If I attended again, I would log it again. And I miss Markwell's Photographer's Caches! They were fun!! Almost drove to Fallingwaters in the winter for that one!

Logging two finds on the same physical cache in the same place is a far different story (IMHO, at least.)

The bonus smileys that some seem to like would probably fall under the banned ALR concept. "Get an extra smiley for performing a lotus position" is definitely an ALR. You found the cache. You signed the log. That should get you one smiley.

Link to comment

I'm going to go against the grain and speak my mind. First off, I'm new to the hobby, so take my opinion however you want.

 

The way I see it, if I locate a cache, and am holding it in my hand, and sign the box it's in, obviously I have found the cache. Signing the box instead of a piece of paper in the box doesn't change the fact that I found it. Would I log that as a find? Probably not, because I don't really care about the smiley or the gold star or internet points or whatever carrot I'm supposed to be chasing. But I absolutely would not feel like I was cheating or somehow pulled a fast one on somebody if I did log a find. The find is mine, and mine to log how I want.

 

That said, the listing on this website is yours, and you'd be well within your rights to remove someone's log from your listing for whatever reason you wanted, because it's your listing, just like it's my find.

 

However, as Bittsen said, what is the damage? Did the finder so bruise your ego by not playing your little games that you feel it's your duty to take away their little smiley face? :rolleyes: Really?

 

In the end, you made a mistake by listing the cache incorrectly, and the finder made a mistake by signing the wrong thing, but you want to hold it over them?

Link to comment

I'm going to go against the grain and speak my mind. First off, I'm new to the hobby, so take my opinion however you want.

 

The way I see it, if I locate a cache, and am holding it in my hand, and sign the box it's in, obviously I have found the cache. Signing the box instead of a piece of paper in the box doesn't change the fact that I found it. Would I log that as a find? Probably not, because I don't really care about the smiley or the gold star or internet points or whatever carrot I'm supposed to be chasing. But I absolutely would not feel like I was cheating or somehow pulled a fast one on somebody if I did log a find. The find is mine, and mine to log how I want.

 

That said, the listing on this website is yours, and you'd be well within your rights to remove someone's log from your listing for whatever reason you wanted, because it's your listing, just like it's my find.

 

However, as Bittsen said, what is the damage? Did the finder so bruise your ego by not playing your little games that you feel it's your duty to take away their little smiley face? :laughing: Really?

 

In the end, you made a mistake by listing the cache incorrectly, and the finder made a mistake by signing the wrong thing, but you want to hold it over them?

While I agree with your overall theme I personally draw the line at logging a find when I have the container in hand but can't open it because I lack the necessary information. At this point it is unfortunate the cache was improperly classified. If I hunted it without reading the cache page and found the locked container I would be embarrased due to my lack of preparation. I would log a note or DNF and would be honest and admit that I did not do what was necessary to log a find for the cache.

 

I do not believe that simply locating the container constitutes a find.

 

Other cachers can choose to play the game as they will. I won't get too worked up over their decisions as long as they do not directly affect the game for me when I am playing.

Link to comment

After re-reading the descriptions for Traditional Caches and Puzzle Caches it seems to me that neither description would necessarily exclude this cache. But then again I read all cache descriptions completely regardless of the type. I figure, they took the time to write it, obviously there is some sort of information in there that they want me to know before hunting the cache (e.g. mosquitoes in this area as big as Mack trucks, trail is kid-friendly except for the 200ft cliff in that one spot, cache container replaced since the bear attack etc.)

Edited by runawaybunny
Link to comment

I'm going to go against the grain and speak my mind. First off, I'm new to the hobby, so take my opinion however you want.

 

The way I see it, if I locate a cache, and am holding it in my hand, and sign the box it's in, obviously I have found the cache. Signing the box instead of a piece of paper in the box doesn't change the fact that I found it.

 

If you're going to (in the minds of many a cache hider) deface their container with your signature, then be prepared to not be the most popular guy in your area.

 

People will whisper about you at events. Whisper!

Link to comment

The way I see it, if I locate a cache, and am holding it in my hand, and sign the box it's in, obviously I have found the cache. Signing the box instead of a piece of paper in the box doesn't change the fact that I found it. Would I log that as a find? Probably not, because I don't really care about the smiley or the gold star or internet points or whatever carrot I'm supposed to be chasing. But I absolutely would not feel like I was cheating or somehow pulled a fast one on somebody if I did log a find. The find is mine, and mine to log how I want.

I consider signing the box is a form of vandalism much like graffiti is. It's not you're property so don't deface it. If you're not going to log it online and can't sign the log then don't sign at all. What's the point of signing the container then? To let the owner know you found it? The owner probably doesn't care that you touched his container but didn't open the box. He'll be more annoyed with the writing on his cache. Note: I'm using "you" here because you used "I" in your post. I'm not accusing you of anything, just continuing the discussion.

 

There are many views on what "found" means. You think touching it is a found. Others think that seeing it is a found. Still others consider finding the spot where it should have been a found. Logging a find online based on these definitions can cause grief for other cachers. Someone logging a find on a cache with a string of DNFs would cause the people who DNFed it to go back out to search for it wasting their time, money and gas. Logging a find on the OP's cache tells everyone else that all the information is available and the lock is in working order. Etc.

 

Like you wrote, the experience of the find and the log entry is yours and the cache container and listing is the CO's. But the website belongs to Groundspeak and they said that your name in the log book lets you log a found it and gives the CO the ability to enforce it.

Link to comment

Recently people have been finding my traditional cache Sisters Tie Trail GC1BG36 and claiming a find although they have not retrieved or signed the logbook according to the cache page.

 

This cache is a traditional in the sense that it does provide the exact coordinates of the cache location yet when you find it, I expect that you have read the cache page to find the lock-code to unlock the box to retrieve the logbook and goods.

 

My issue: People have been finding the cache without reading the cache page and then either claiming a find stating that it is not a traditional or just signing the box itself!

 

Should this cache be changed to a puzzle cache although you do not need to figure out the coordinates? Is there a new cache type this sort of traditional cache falls under? Or is it the cacher's own fault for not reading the page before heading out on the hunt? Debating removing the recent finds and informing them that they need to sign the log, but want to make sure I'm not in the wrong.

 

Thanks!

 

There is no puzzle to solve as you are giving instructions.

 

It's actually a multicache with a few virtual stages in between. Perhaps you should list all the stages on the page as waypoints with the first signage coords at the top of the page instead of the final.

 

Also, paint the cache container black.. :laughing:

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment

Since one must figure out the combination, I would agree that it should be a mystery cache.

I have no qualms about deleting logs for people who did not sign the log. Sign log - Get smiley!

As to people who do not read cache pages before hunting caches: There are a lot of caches that would be almost impossible to find without reading the cache page. If you don't read the cache page: TBSS. That's the cache hunter's problem, not the cache owner's.

 

I think the pro-[make it a puzzle] people are looking at it all wrong. I simply see the lock as additional stars of difficulty. Because you don't need to solve jack to locate GZ. But at GZ, you need to use your senses. Just my humble and lame opinion.

 

No you need to use your senses and do some simple math tasks along the trail at other waypoints besides GZ before you arrive at GZ. You cannot simply wander along following the magic arrow until you get to the cache in order to log this one. This one should be changed to a multi not a puzzle.

Link to comment

The way I see it, if I locate a cache, and am holding it in my hand, and sign the box it's in, obviously I have found the cache. Signing the box instead of a piece of paper in the box doesn't change the fact that I found it. Would I log that as a find? Probably not, because I don't really care about the smiley or the gold star or internet points or whatever carrot I'm supposed to be chasing. But I absolutely would not feel like I was cheating or somehow pulled a fast one on somebody if I did log a find. The find is mine, and mine to log how I want.

 

Hurray! You found your first geocache. Congratulations! Now what?

 

1) Take note of the style and method of this hide. Where did this geocache bring you? Enjoy the location.

2) Sign the logbook with your name, the date, and a few words about your experience.

Edited by knowschad
Link to comment
There is no puzzle to solve as you are giving instructions.

 

It's actually a multicache with a few virtual stages in between. Perhaps you should list all the stages on the page as waypoints with the first signage coords at the top of the page instead of the final.

No you need to use your senses and do some simple math tasks along the trail at other waypoints besides GZ before you arrive at GZ. You cannot simply wander along following the magic arrow until you get to the cache in order to log this one. This one should be changed to a multi not a puzzle.

If all the stages had coordinates then it would be a multi. The current write up for getting the second number basically says (paraphrasing) "somewhere along the way". That pushes it into on-site puzzle territory. If he adds coordinates for the first trail marking post you're supposed to start counting at then I'd agree it would be a multi.

Link to comment
There is no puzzle to solve as you are giving instructions.

 

It's actually a multicache with a few virtual stages in between. Perhaps you should list all the stages on the page as waypoints with the first signage coords at the top of the page instead of the final.

No you need to use your senses and do some simple math tasks along the trail at other waypoints besides GZ before you arrive at GZ. You cannot simply wander along following the magic arrow until you get to the cache in order to log this one. This one should be changed to a multi not a puzzle.

If all the stages had coordinates then it would be a multi. The current write up for getting the second number basically says (paraphrasing) "somewhere along the way". That pushes it into on-site puzzle territory. If he adds coordinates for the first trail marking post you're supposed to start counting at then I'd agree it would be a multi.

 

It is not typical of any category.

Although it is by definition like a puzzle, it is more similar to a multi based on the steps needed to sign the log.

Link to comment

It is not typical of any category.

Although it is by definition like a puzzle, it is more similar to a multi based on the steps needed to sign the log.

You're reasoning seems a bit backwards. The mystery/puzzle category is the 'The "catch-all" of cache types' which means it's where a cache should end up if it doesn't fit the other categories.

 

"Similar to a multi" implies it's not a true multi. For a multi each stage should have coordinates whether published on the cache page or calculated/given in previous stages. Any time you get a "go to this general area and find something that looks like this" it becomes an onsite puzzle as the coordinates for that stage are not given in any which way.

Link to comment

Since one must figure out the combination, I would agree that it should be a mystery cache.

I have no qualms about deleting logs for people who did not sign the log. Sign log - Get smiley!

As to people who do not read cache pages before hunting caches: There are a lot of caches that would be almost impossible to find without reading the cache page. If you don't read the cache page: TBSS. That's the cache hunter's problem, not the cache owner's.

 

I think the pro-[make it a puzzle] people are looking at it all wrong. I simply see the lock as additional stars of difficulty. Because you don't need to solve jack to locate GZ. But at GZ, you need to use your senses. Just my humble and lame opinion.

 

Upon further consideration, I have decided to agree with you. This is a traditional cache. The additional waypoints (not required to find the cache) will make the lock easier to open. They are not required. If one chooses to ignore the waypoints, one can sit and open the lock by trying all combinations. (Reminds me of a TB that I found once. A padlock. "Tell me how long it took you to open me!" Took me about a half hour.) Offering the cache hunter two options: One easy, one more difficult, does not change it from a traditional cache to a mystery cache. Finding the waypoints is not required.

Link to comment

Since one must figure out the combination, I would agree that it should be a mystery cache.

I have no qualms about deleting logs for people who did not sign the log. Sign log - Get smiley!

As to people who do not read cache pages before hunting caches: There are a lot of caches that would be almost impossible to find without reading the cache page. If you don't read the cache page: TBSS. That's the cache hunter's problem, not the cache owner's.

 

I think the pro-[make it a puzzle] people are looking at it all wrong. I simply see the lock as additional stars of difficulty. Because you don't need to solve jack to locate GZ. But at GZ, you need to use your senses. Just my humble and lame opinion.

 

Upon further consideration, I have decided to agree with you. This is a traditional cache. The additional waypoints (not required to find the cache) will make the lock easier to open. They are not required. If one chooses to ignore the waypoints, one can sit and open the lock by trying all combinations. (Reminds me of a TB that I found once. A padlock. "Tell me how long it took you to open me!" Took me about a half hour.) Offering the cache hunter two options: One easy, one more difficult, does not change it from a traditional cache to a mystery cache. Finding the waypoints is not required.

 

I very much like this interpretation... and the more that I think about it I like it more. Since I've started this post, I've deleted whole sentences with qualifications and exceptions and other things but then thought about it more and realized that if you place a cache where it's difficult to find or difficult to open, it's all the same thing. If the cache description or hints makes it easier to find out how to open or find it, then it's just a normal part of a traditional cache. Same with this one. I didn't think I would come around on this one as being wrongly categorized.

Link to comment

Upon further consideration, I have decided to agree with you. This is a traditional cache. The additional waypoints (not required to find the cache) will make the lock easier to open. They are not required. If one chooses to ignore the waypoints, one can sit and open the lock by trying all combinations.

If no information was given to open the lock then it would be an on site puzzle (lock picking). This is no different from all the other caches where figuring out how to get into the cache container is the puzzle. Here's a cache in my area where you have to crack a lock GC1PPH8 Digits.

 

If the combo was published on the cache page and it was a single stage then it would be a traditional. But with a lot of things in geocaching there's a lot of gray area. A very simple lock like the above cache could have been listed as a traditional but then you risk what happened to the OP with cachers signing the container because "it wasn't listed as a puzzle".

 

I think people are misunderstanding my point. Because the combo is given (even indirectly) the lock is not a puzzle. The combo just replaced the final coordinates. What I'm saying makes the difference between a puzzle and a multi are if all stages have coordinates. Even if the cache had no lock this would still hold true.

Link to comment

I very much like this interpretation... and the more that I think about it I like it more. Since I've started this post, I've deleted whole sentences with qualifications and exceptions and other things but then thought about it more and realized that if you place a cache where it's difficult to find or difficult to open, it's all the same thing. If the cache description or hints makes it easier to find out how to open or find it, then it's just a normal part of a traditional cache. Same with this one. I didn't think I would come around on this one as being wrongly categorized.

The fact that you decided to ignore the other stages doesn't turn it into a traditional. If I short circuited a multi and went straight to the final using the hint it doesn't make it a traditional either.

 

More than one stage = Not a traditional.

Link to comment

I read many of the responses on the 1st page of the thread and feel the CO is wrong, as are some of the responses/suggestions.

 

This cache needs to be an Unknown/Mystery.

 

Simply adding "(READ DESCRIP)" to the name of the cache doesn't change the fact that you have to solve some kind of puzzle (the combination for the lock) to claim your find.

 

The CO's claim that because it's at the published coordinates doesn't hold water. This falls under the same blanket as a challenge cache that's at the published coordiantes. There is something you must do (in this case, figure out the combination) in addition to finding the container in order to claim your find. It's not an ALR...it's a requirement to obtain the logbook.

Link to comment
If no information was given to open the lock then it would be an on site puzzle (lock picking).
I would think that figuring out the combination would be a puzzle, but that picking the lock (or otherwise opening the lock without a key or combination) would be a 5-star traditional that requires "specialized knowledge, skills, or equipment". I'm familiar with locked cache containers of both types, depending on how the CO expected you to open the lock.

 

I think people are misunderstanding my point. Because the combo is given (even indirectly) the lock is not a puzzle.
I've found caches where the combination is given as a puzzle. The lock is not the puzzle, but getting the combination is the puzzle, so the cache is a puzzle cache. As I said, it depends on how the CO expects you to open the lock: are you supposed to solve a puzzle, or are you supposed to use "specialized knowledge, skills, or equipment"?
Link to comment

I read many of the responses on the 1st page of the thread and feel the CO is wrong, as are some of the responses/suggestions.

 

This cache needs to be an Unknown/Mystery.

 

Simply adding "(READ DESCRIP)" to the name of the cache doesn't change the fact that you have to solve some kind of puzzle (the combination for the lock) to claim your find.

The 'mystery or puzzle' cache type is not just for standard puzzles.
Link to comment

I would think that figuring out the combination would be a puzzle, but that picking the lock (or otherwise opening the lock without a key or combination) would be a 5-star traditional that requires "specialized knowledge, skills, or equipment". I'm familiar with locked cache containers of both types, depending on how the CO expected you to open the lock.

Yeah, lock picking was a bad choice of words as I agree with you that would be a 5 difficulty. But it wouldn't necessarily be a traditional. If it had more than one stage then it's a multi.

 

A standard Dudley style combo lock would also probably be a 5 difficulty. But a bike lock style one would be closer to a puzzle as it would be easy to brute force it in a short time. The cache I mentioned it was a 3 digit combo with only the digits 1-6 used.

 

I've found caches where the combination is given as a puzzle. The lock is not the puzzle, but getting the combination is the puzzle, so the cache is a puzzle cache. As I said, it depends on how the CO expects you to open the lock: are you supposed to solve a puzzle, or are you supposed to use "specialized knowledge, skills, or equipment"?

I agree with the"specialized knowledge, skills, or equipment" part. I would not call getting the combination a puzzle all of the time. If you had to use logic or anything else that requires a bit of thinking or detective work then yes, it's a puzzle. But if all you have to do is blindly follow instructions it's not a puzzle. "Go here, write down this number". In the OP's cache one of the stages had to be located without GPS coordinates. That falls under detective work so I'd call it a puzzle.

Link to comment
I've found caches where the combination is given as a puzzle. The lock is not the puzzle, but getting the combination is the puzzle, so the cache is a puzzle cache. As I said, it depends on how the CO expects you to open the lock: are you supposed to solve a puzzle, or are you supposed to use "specialized knowledge, skills, or equipment"?
I agree with the"specialized knowledge, skills, or equipment" part. I would not call getting the combination a puzzle all of the time. If you had to use logic or anything else that requires a bit of thinking or detective work then yes, it's a puzzle. But if all you have to do is blindly follow instructions it's not a puzzle. "Go here, write down this number". In the OP's cache one of the stages had to be located without GPS coordinates. That falls under detective work so I'd call it a puzzle.
Yeah, I suppose you could make a multi-cache out of the combination, if the cache used simple "count this" and "write down that" types of instructions. I've never seen that done though. The combination has always been part of a puzzle.
Link to comment

I have something similar but different in a way, here is the cache:

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...99-d5477ddf5c6d

 

Liz's Con: Black Bee's

 

This is a traditional cache, just go to the coordinates, find the cache and sign the log. But I put up a 3 inch by 3 inch magnet on a nearby Qwest Telephone Junction box with two "Black B's" on the magnet. This is the 'CON' in the cache name, but people scratch or scribble their names on the back of the magnet and claim the find. The coordinates do not take you to the magnet, they take you to the actual cache. Both the cache description and the hint say DO NOT BE CONNED. Over half of the so called "Find Logs" on the cache did NOT sign the cache log. I emailed a few of the "finders" to tell them that I did not see their name on the log and you would have thought I told them they were having an IRS audit. They say things like "Why should I bother with reading the cache page" or "I never read the hints, I don't need to", etc.... I don't want to come across as a mean cache hider, but I don't like LAZY cachers either. You might as well carve your name in a tree near the coordinates to the cache and claim the find.

 

SHOULD I ENFORCE THE RULES AND DELETE THOSE 'FIND LOGS' WHO DID NOT SIGN THE LOG?

 

If the cache name says CON in it, it should be fairly obvious that you need to be aware of a CON.

 

What do you gals/guys think? :shocked:

Link to comment

I have something similar but different in a way, here is the cache:

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...99-d5477ddf5c6d

 

Liz's Con: Black Bee's

 

This is a traditional cache, just go to the coordinates, find the cache and sign the log. But I put up a 3 inch by 3 inch magnet on a nearby Qwest Telephone Junction box with two "Black B's" on the magnet. This is the 'CON' in the cache name, but people scratch or scribble their names on the back of the magnet and claim the find. The coordinates do not take you to the magnet, they take you to the actual cache. Both the cache description and the hint say DO NOT BE CONNED. Over half of the so called "Find Logs" on the cache did NOT sign the cache log. I emailed a few of the "finders" to tell them that I did not see their name on the log and you would have thought I told them they were having an IRS audit. They say things like "Why should I bother with reading the cache page" or "I never read the hints, I don't need to", etc.... I don't want to come across as a mean cache hider, but I don't like LAZY cachers either. You might as well carve your name in a tree near the coordinates to the cache and claim the find.

 

SHOULD I ENFORCE THE RULES AND DELETE THOSE 'FIND LOGS' WHO DID NOT SIGN THE LOG?

 

If the cache name says CON in it, it should be fairly obvious that you need to be aware of a CON.

 

What do you gals/guys think? :shocked:

 

Adding a decoy container is manipulative. Many people don't like to be manipulated without knowing it.

One day someone will find your decoy and throw it away. Until then, do what you want.

Personally, I hate decoys near GZ. I think it's stupid to mess with people that way.

 

IMHO

Link to comment

I have something similar but different in a way, here is the cache:

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...99-d5477ddf5c6d

 

Liz's Con: Black Bee's

 

This is a traditional cache, just go to the coordinates, find the cache and sign the log. But I put up a 3 inch by 3 inch magnet on a nearby Qwest Telephone Junction box with two "Black B's" on the magnet. This is the 'CON' in the cache name, but people scratch or scribble their names on the back of the magnet and claim the find. The coordinates do not take you to the magnet, they take you to the actual cache. Both the cache description and the hint say DO NOT BE CONNED. Over half of the so called "Find Logs" on the cache did NOT sign the cache log. I emailed a few of the "finders" to tell them that I did not see their name on the log and you would have thought I told them they were having an IRS audit. They say things like "Why should I bother with reading the cache page" or "I never read the hints, I don't need to", etc.... I don't want to come across as a mean cache hider, but I don't like LAZY cachers either. You might as well carve your name in a tree near the coordinates to the cache and claim the find.

 

SHOULD I ENFORCE THE RULES AND DELETE THOSE 'FIND LOGS' WHO DID NOT SIGN THE LOG?

 

If the cache name says CON in it, it should be fairly obvious that you need to be aware of a CON.

 

What do you gals/guys think? :shocked:

How would the people know that the magnet is not the cache?
Link to comment
How would the people know that the magnet is not the cache?

1. Because it is NOT at the listed coordinates.

2. Because there is no log on it.

3. Because the NAME of the cache states that the Black Bee's are a CON.

 

I think I will put a sticker on the back of the magnet that states "NOPE, you've been conned"

 

What do you think?

Edited by Inmountains
Link to comment
How would the people know that the magnet is not the cache?

1. Because it is NOT at the listed coordinates.

2. Because there is no log on it.

3. Because the NAME of the cache states that the Black Bee's are a CON.

 

I think I will put a sticker on the back of the magnet that states "NOPE, you've been conned"

 

What do you think?

 

How far away from the listed coords are they? Must be within the radius many search or it wouldn't be much of a decoy. Sticker on the back would make it clear this isn't the cache. Even still you will most likely still have seekers sign all around that message.

 

I wouldn't delete the finds that were done like this, but then I'm pretty easy going.

Edited by rob3k
Link to comment

I'm going to go against the grain and speak my mind. First off, I'm new to the hobby, so take my opinion however you want.

 

The way I see it, if I locate a cache, and am holding it in my hand, and sign the box it's in, obviously I have found the cache. Signing the box instead of a piece of paper in the box doesn't change the fact that I found it....

 

Excellent logic.

 

Consider. A cache isn't the box, it's what's inside. You haven't accessed the cache (which is the point of signing the log) until you open it. Until you access it, technicaly you have done nothing more than find a box, which you are assuming contains the cache but which could also be something else entirly. The log is your confirmation you 'found' the cache and not something else entirly.

 

In the more traditional use of the concept of caching. To cache something wasn't to 'find the box you wished to put them in and call it a day" it was to store the something securely for future access. We use a log in place of the something cached. The military loved caching things.

 

Ignoring all that why vandalize the box and call it a log?

Edited by Renegade Knight
Link to comment
I think I will put a sticker on the back of the magnet that states "NOPE, you've been conned"

 

What do you think?

When I've used a "decoy" (the camouflage required two matching objects; one was the cache, the other was a "decoy"), I included a message on the decoy that explained that this was not the cache, but the other one was. I never had a problem with this approach.
Link to comment

This cache is a traditional in the sense that it does provide the exact coordinates of the cache location yet when you find it, I expect that you have read the cache page to find the lock-code to unlock the box to retrieve the logbook and goods.

 

I was all set to defend this as a traditional cache that merely had a container that was difficult to open. If the cache page clearly stated the lock-code then I'd see it as not much more than a means of protecting from muggles.

 

After skimming through the thread, I got the impression that the code was hidden somewhere on the cache page, or could be solved by viewing the cache page. If that was the case then I was going to suggest a mystery/puzzle cache.

 

Looking at the actual cache page, I see that the lock code is nowhere on the page (hidden or obvious) but rather one has to go to many different physicial locations on the way to the cache. To me this is a multi (or possibly a mystery). No way is it a traditional. I also find the OP a little misleading with "I expect that you have read the cache page to find the lock-code...". One can not merely read the page to find the lock-code, they need to do much more than this.

 

I'd categorize it as a multi. If people didn't read your cache page and went right to the final they would likely assume it was the first stage and would read the cache page to figure out what to do next.

Link to comment

Recently people have been finding my traditional cache Sisters Tie Trail GC1BG36 and claiming a find although they have not retrieved or signed the logbook according to the cache page.

 

This cache is a traditional in the sense that it does provide the exact coordinates of the cache location yet when you find it, I expect that you have read the cache page to find the lock-code to unlock the box to retrieve the logbook and goods.

 

My issue: People have been finding the cache without reading the cache page and then either claiming a find stating that it is not a traditional or just signing the box itself!

 

Should this cache be changed to a puzzle cache although you do not need to figure out the coordinates? Is there a new cache type this sort of traditional cache falls under? Or is it the cacher's own fault for not reading the page before heading out on the hunt? Debating removing the recent finds and informing them that they need to sign the log, but want to make sure I'm not in the wrong.

 

Thanks!

I wouldn't be surprised somebody eventually left a log like.

 

Somebody must have thought it was funny to to turn your traditional into a mystery.

I fixed the problem with a hacksaw.

 

on to reading the rest of the thread.

Link to comment

I'm going to go against the grain and speak my mind. First off, I'm new to the hobby, so take my opinion however you want.

 

The way I see it, if I locate a cache, and am holding it in my hand, and sign the box it's in, obviously I have found the cache. Signing the box instead of a piece of paper in the box doesn't change the fact that I found it. Would I log that as a find? Probably not, because I don't really care about the smiley or the gold star or internet points or whatever carrot I'm supposed to be chasing. But I absolutely would not feel like I was cheating or somehow pulled a fast one on somebody if I did log a find. The find is mine, and mine to log how I want.

 

That said, the listing on this website is yours, and you'd be well within your rights to remove someone's log from your listing for whatever reason you wanted, because it's your listing, just like it's my find.

 

However, as Bittsen said, what is the damage? Did the finder so bruise your ego by not playing your little games that you feel it's your duty to take away their little smiley face? :D Really?

 

In the end, you made a mistake by listing the cache incorrectly, and the finder made a mistake by signing the wrong thing, but you want to hold it over them?

The container is not the cache, the contents are the cache.

Wanna know what the container is? It is the container.

If you don't open the container then you have not found the cache, you only found the...

 

OK, I'm turning into Mojo Jojo so I'll stop, and note that some will be tempted to point out exceptions in an attempt to prove me wrong.

Link to comment

The only mystery is why someone would head out to find a cache without the following.

 

1) Reading the cache page

2) Looking at at least a few logs if not all of them.

 

 

Bother. How about : because not everyone caches like you?

 

When I take the kids, I read descriptions. I look for things that would indicate safety and some place of interest for 6 and 4 year olds.

 

When all alone, I like the hunt. By golly, if I can turn a 1.5 difficulty micro into a 4.5 since I don't know a darn thing about the item for which I am looking, then that's what I'll do. Coordinates, terrain, cache type, and attributes are there for a reason. So, I'll grab a bunch of "traditionals" for a target area, load 'em up in the GPSr, and head out. No reading of description, just coordinates. For some folks, it makes it more fun.

 

Logs? You have got to be kidding. I'll read them after I find the cache, but not before. Often, there are too many spoilers in logs. I want to find the cache, not know exactly where it is. Then there's hardly a "find" factor for me, you see? Yeah, yeah - DNFs may indicate this and that, but then again, I've found caches that had not been found in a long time or had multiple DNFs. So, in my limited experience, often information that can be gleaned from strings of types of logs is irrelevant in the end.

 

With modern ease of technology, I can fire up a blackberry or iphone if I see a no trespassing sign or something else seems amiss (private property, terrain succeptible to erosion, et cetera) and read to ensure everything is kosher.

 

Then again, descriptions and logs can be incredibly misleading. After a recent DNF (incorrect coordinates, that were updated in the description but no bother to update through the reviewer :blink: ), I read the description and log. I went back to the reported GZ, after thoroughly reading the description and all the logs. These were wildly inaccruate, to include a log from the CO, since the cache had been replaced/emplaced by the "FTF" cacher (though in their defense, they did not "claim" a FTF), and the replacement was not at all like the description from the CO. Using this info, I had another DNF.

 

Only when I went back to the spot, in my traditional style of knowing nothing about the cache description and logs, but this time armed with the actual coordinates, I found the cache within 10 seconds. :o

 

So, is this lack of attention to descriptions and/or logs any less of a mystery now?

 

I think I've already said it somewhere in the thread - the coordinates and cache type are listed for a reason. If actual cache for a traditional is not at the actual listed coordinates, then as Riffster commented - perhaps the CO should consult with the reviewer. Yup, that's crazy talk, Mischief. :D

Link to comment

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

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