Cache Owners Logging Own Caches as "Finds"

[+popokiiti]

...but I haven't been able to find it.

We have come across a couple of cache owners who are logging their own caches as finds. I couldn't find anything for or against this, but if you have placed a cache...wouldn't you already know where it is? Therefore, you are not really "finding" it? I hope at least they signed their own logs!

Anyways, throwing this out there for your opinions - thanks!

[+Hrethgir]

It's a kind of shady thing I've heard about, kind of a way of padding your find numbers. I don't think there's a rule specifically against it, but I'm with you, I don't see that as a "Find" because they didn't actually find anything. But wutaryugonnado, can't control what other people are going to do, so no use in worrying about it.

[+The magician & his assistant]

My wife and I hunt as a team, but hide as individuals but still just use one account. We try to out do each other and do not share the info on our hides. So when I hunt one of her hides I log it as a find. We put in our logs why it looks like we are claiming our own caches.

 

ps. Its not against the rules so please dont make rules up that do not exists then judge people based on your ideals. Could it be numbers padding...yea, but it is not for us.

[+Isonzo Karst]

You could post a note to one of those caches with this Knowledgebase Article link

[Clan Riffster]

if you have placed a cache...wouldn't you already know where it is?

I think this is the argument that holds the least amount of water, at least for my hides. For a few of them, I could give you a pretty good idea about how to find them once you got to ground zero, but for the majority, I couldn't tell you to save my life. If I have to do maintenance on one of those, I gotta load up my Oregon and hit the swamp, praying I don't get another DNF on my own hide. Maybe if I hid more P&Gs I'd agree with you, but till that day comes, I have no earthly idea where them suckers are. As an example, I recently hosted an event, and afterward I escorted 15 or so people out into a particularly nasty jungle, teaching them about bushwhacking in a sub-tropical environment. There were about half a dozen of my hides out there to find along the way. I was able to give hints to one of them. For the rest, it was "poke, squish, dodge snake, poke, squish, dodge snake, poke, squish, thunk" till we found the ammo can.

 

That being said, I think logging your own finds is kinda cheesy.

 

However, there are a few caches I own that I deliberately intend to log finds on. If I ever find them.

I adopted them sight unseen, and I still haven't hunted for them... yet. When I do, I'll log them.

I reckon I really am cheesy...

[+briansnat]

There are few situations where it is understandable. A somewhat common one is when someone finds a cache, then adopts it later.

 

Some owners have logged finds when someone move their cache. For example I have a cache that I haven't been able to find in several trips but others find it regularly. I even logged DNFs on it. If I ever do find it I wouldn't log a find, but a few owners might in a similar situation.

 

Outside a very few limited situations it's a silly practice and a bit cheesy. But the practice is generally harmless and nothing I'm going to stay up at night worrying about.

Edited August 16, 2009 by briansnat

[+Knight2000]

There are few situations where it is understandable. A somewhat common one is when someone finds a cache, then adopts it later.

Will you say I am cheesy because this happened to me?

Edited August 16, 2009 by Knight2000

[+briansnat]

There are few situations where it is understandable. A somewhat common one is when someone finds a cache, then adopts it later.

Will you say I am cheesy because this happened to me?

 

Did you read my post at all?

[Knight-Errant]

My wife and I hunt as a team, but hide as individuals but still just use one account. We try to out do each other and do not share the info on our hides. So when I hunt one of her hides I log it as a find. We put in our logs why it looks like we are claiming our own caches.

 

ps. Its not against the rules so please dont make rules up that do not exists then judge people based on your ideals. Could it be numbers padding...yea, but it is not for us.

While this could be considered an argument for seperate accounts, we would consider your case to be a valid exception to the general guideline. However, if you are not already doing it, we would encourage you to include this information in your Found It logs so as to avoid confusion--particularly for newer cachers that will get the wrong idea.

 

Other valid exceptions would be involve the previously mentioned adoption-after-the-find and moving caches.

[+sbell111]

My wife and I hunt as a team, but hide as individuals but still just use one account. We try to out do each other and do not share the info on our hides. So when I hunt one of her hides I log it as a find. We put in our logs why it looks like we are claiming our own caches.

 

ps. Its not against the rules so please dont make rules up that do not exists then judge people based on your ideals. Could it be numbers padding...yea, but it is not for us.

While this could be considered an argument for seperate accounts, we would consider your case to be a valid exception to the general guideline. However, if you are not already doing it, we would encourage you to include this information in your Found It logs so as to avoid confusion--particularly for newer cachers that will get the wrong idea.

 

Other valid exceptions would be involve the previously mentioned adoption-after-the-find and moving caches.

There is no guideline that addresses this issue.

[+Knight2000]

There are few situations where it is understandable. A somewhat common one is when someone finds a cache, then adopts it later.

Will you say I am cheesy because this happened to me?

 

Did you read my post at all?

I wasn't referring to you. I was just joshing the OP. I guess i needed a smiley at the end. (Wait. I guess i did have one. )

Edited August 17, 2009 by Knight2000

[AZcachemeister]

My wife and I hunt as a team, but hide as individuals but still just use one account. We try to out do each other and do not share the info on our hides. So when I hunt one of her hides I log it as a find. We put in our logs why it looks like we are claiming our own caches.

 

ps. Its not against the rules so please dont make rules up that do not exists then judge people based on your ideals. Could it be numbers padding...yea, but it is not for us.

 

There is no 'rule' or guideline against this, but as previously stated it does point towards the potential future need to separate caches found by only one of you. It could be confusing to newbies.

 

There are few situations where it is understandable. A somewhat common one is when someone finds a cache, then adopts it later.

Will you say I am cheesy because this happened to me?

 

I guess that explains your strong smell of Emmentaler?

 

And my strong smell of Brie.

[+sbell111]

My wife and I hunt as a team, but hide as individuals but still just use one account. We try to out do each other and do not share the info on our hides. So when I hunt one of her hides I log it as a find. We put in our logs why it looks like we are claiming our own caches.

 

ps. Its not against the rules so please dont make rules up that do not exists then judge people based on your ideals. Could it be numbers padding...yea, but it is not for us.

 

There is no 'rule' or guideline against this, but as previously stated it does point towards the potential future need to separate caches found by only one of you.

Why? Their logging methond works for them and doesn't affect anyone else.

[+Taoiseach]

There are few situations where it is understandable. A somewhat common one is when someone finds a cache, then adopts it later.

Will you say I am cheesy because this happened to me?

 

This has happened to me 7 times!

 

Something I've noticed (Long Story...) - You can't post a 'Needs Archived' on your own cache, but yet you can log a find. How odd...

[JustWannaCache]

...but I haven't been able to find it.

We have come across a couple of cache owners who are logging their own caches as finds. I couldn't find anything for or against this, but if you have placed a cache...wouldn't you already know where it is? Therefore, you are not really "finding" it? I hope at least they signed their own logs!

Anyways, throwing this out there for your opinions - thanks!

OK, So you set your car keys down somewhere, and forgot where they were hidden. Once you locate them, did you "find" them?

[knowschad]

I did once claimed a find on one of my caches: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LU...1e-d22d5656a87a

 

Of course, that just was after logging a DNF on that same cache 4/3: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LU...5b-fb8dcf20dfad

 

Now, before anyone complains... it was done in a moment of humor. I also once clamed two DNFs on a lame LPC before I logged my find just to make it fun.

Edited August 17, 2009 by knowschad

[Mr.Yuck]

...but I haven't been able to find it.

We have come across a couple of cache owners who are logging their own caches as finds. I couldn't find anything for or against this, but if you have placed a cache...wouldn't you already know where it is? Therefore, you are not really "finding" it? I hope at least they signed their own logs!

Anyways, throwing this out there for your opinions - thanks!

 

Now if you would have asked this like a year ago, I'd say I'd only seen a few people log their own caches as finds by accident. This doesn't include the obviously not a problem practice of logging a find on caches you later adopted.

 

However, within the past year in my area, I've seen several people log finds on their own caches, usually during maintenance visits, and they know exactly what they're doing. Now I haven't smoked dope in like 25 years (and even then it wasn't that much), but despite this, I do subscribe to the long-haired filthy hippy credo of "live and let live, man". These people can do whatever they want, and it doesn't affect me in the least bit.

 

This doesn't mean we can't all point our fingers at them and laugh though.

[+popokiiti]

Thanks for all your replies folks, I didn't expect so many, so soon. Popoki Nui and I have placed caches together and separately...and I recently found one by myself that PN hid alone, and I did not know its location prior to my visit. I still felt awkward though. I will amend my log as mentioned - good suggestion.

Anyways, just to clarify, these are newish caches I am referring to, not adopted, in an urban environment (no bushwacking needed just muggle avoidance) and I was just looking for your thoughts.

I am not making up rules that do not exist, nor am I judging anyone based on my own ideals. I know that there are teams out there that hunt together and hide separately and together just like us. It's been good hearing what you have to say.

Thank you very much for the link...how the heck do you find things like that? And so quickly? I tried, and was scrolling and scrolling through the forums before I gave up and posted! I obviously used the wrong search words. And the wrong place! That link made things clearer for me.

Happy Caching and Cache Hiding!!

[+popokiiti]

...but I haven't been able to find it.

We have come across a couple of cache owners who are logging their own caches as finds. I couldn't find anything for or against this, but if you have placed a cache...wouldn't you already know where it is? Therefore, you are not really "finding" it? I hope at least they signed their own logs!

Anyways, throwing this out there for your opinions - thanks!

OK, So you set your car keys down somewhere, and forgot where they were hidden. Once you locate them, did you "find" them?

 

No...............I "discovered" them! Sorry, I couldn't resist. Your turn..........

[GreenLantern5000]

The comment about "padding the find stats"... I only see that being the case when a person has 20 finds and goes to hide 70 caches.... See what I mean?.... Otherwise, some of the geocachers on this forum have fraggin' 1000's of finds, some in the 10,000's..... So, if they've hid 100 and logged them all, I don't think it's really padding their find stats.....

[+sheppardnik]

My caching team has hidden two "challenge" caches in our area (one an alpha-numerical, the other a 13-day "daily dozen"). Even though the three of us hide as a team we always log separately. I'll log a find on both of those hides because it was more about the challenges than the actual "final" cache.

[+Rockin Roddy]

The comment about "padding the find stats"... I only see that being the case when a person has 20 finds and goes to hide 70 caches.... See what I mean?.... Otherwise, some of the geocachers on this forum have fraggin' 1000's of finds, some in the 10,000's..... So, if they've hid 100 and logged them all, I don't think it's really padding their find stats.....

 

What is it then??

[knowschad]

The comment about "padding the find stats"... I only see that being the case when a person has 20 finds and goes to hide 70 caches.... See what I mean?.... Otherwise, some of the geocachers on this forum have fraggin' 1000's of finds, some in the 10,000's..... So, if they've hid 100 and logged them all, I don't think it's really padding their find stats.....

 

What is it then??

 

Statistically insignificant data.

[+Jeep_Dog]

You know, I've got a new cache in the reviewer que. I think I'm going to go find it prior to it getting published, and not only log it, but "steal" the FTF too.

[+Printess Caroline]

I've seen some instances in which the owner logged a find where it made sense. For instance, I know someone who will log a find on his cache that is one of the few remaining travelling caches. If you are the owner and locate the cache in a place where you didn't hide it, didn't you find it?

 

There is one young cacher that I've noticed that logs a find on his own (rather lame) caches. In fact, last I looked, of the 20ish caches he's found, half of them are his own. I chalk it up to his inexperience and youth. If I ever meet him in person, I might say something to him about it if he seems like someone who wouldn't mind hearing what I would say in the most gentle way I could. Otherwise, why ruin his fun... and ours as we chuckle at his growing number of "finds"?

[+tozainamboku]

The comment about "padding the find stats"... I only see that being the case when a person has 20 finds and goes to hide 70 caches.... See what I mean?.... Otherwise, some of the geocachers on this forum have fraggin' 1000's of finds, some in the 10,000's..... So, if they've hid 100 and logged them all, I don't think it's really padding their find stats.....

 

What is it then??

I have no objection to calling it padding your find stats. I do object that people seem to think you can compare cacher A's find stats with cacher B's find stats. What if cacher A finds only find caches with high difficulty or high terrain and cacher B finds only 1/1 park and grabs, do you think it is meaningful to compare their find counts? What if cacher B abides by strict puritan rules and never logs an online find unless they personally signed their name in the log book while cache A always caches with a group of friends and whoever in the group finds the container signs the names of all of the group (they were all at the cache site)? Or perhaps cacher B doesn't worry if they forget a pen or the log was too wet to sign, if they found the cache they will log a find online.

 

There are a few cachers who have adopted that attitude that logging an online find is somehow the "score" by which we compare one cacher to another. And if that is the case you need specific rules for when you can log a find online. The puritans have developed a very specific rigorous rule: You must sign the log / you must log online only once per cache / you must not log caches you also own / you must have found the actual cache - no leaving a replacement cache with your name in that log. There are still disagreements with puritans as what to do on a group find or what to do if the cache owner is with you. There are even some who would relax the signing rule if you take a picture or provide some other "proof" that you found the cache.

 

My experience is that most people who log finds that puritans would not, have a reason for claiming the find other than simply to pad statistics. It may be a belief (right or wrong) that this is what is accepted practice among their geocaching acquaintances. It may be that they see the online log as recording which caches they have "completed". If they don't plan to come back when the owner has made repairs that would allow a puritan to claim a find, they may be comfortable with saying "I found the cache and the signing of the log is a formality that I don't need to do to be able to say I had fun and found your cache". They may believe when their own cache had migrated from where they hid it, that it was as much of a find for them as any cache that someone else had hidden. Examples have been given here of people who use a team account to log finds, where one member of the team has hidden the cache and now allows others on the team to find it. To most people this is not about a competition to have the biggest find count. It is about having fun. Even high number cachers recognize that they can't tell what someone else's numbers mean. Those who venture into these forums certainly know that the puritans are ready to pounce and call them cheaters for every little violation of the puritans' rule they ever made. Most will simply scratch their heads in wonder at why any would make such a big deal over when you log a found it online. It seems that if the finder and and the cache owner agree that found it log is not bogus it can stay.

 

Certainly there are cache owners who don't bother to delete the rare truly bogus logs where someone is just sitting at home logging found it on caches they have never been to. But this is not the case here. Cache owners logging their own caches are either feel that they have a legitimate reason to log a find or have simply selected "found it" by mistake when logging a Note or maintenance visit. Or since sometimes people will look a the date last found when deciding whether to hunt a cache, they are intentionally logging a find to force the date to change.

[GreenLantern5000]

The comment about "padding the find stats"... I only see that being the case when a person has 20 finds and goes to hide 70 caches.... See what I mean?.... Otherwise, some of the geocachers on this forum have fraggin' 1000's of finds, some in the 10,000's..... So, if they've hid 100 and logged them all, I don't think it's really padding their find stats.....

 

What is it then??

 

Statistically insignificant data.

 

Thanks Chad. That's what I was gettin' at.

[+Rockin Roddy]

The comment about "padding the find stats"... I only see that being the case when a person has 20 finds and goes to hide 70 caches.... See what I mean?.... Otherwise, some of the geocachers on this forum have fraggin' 1000's of finds, some in the 10,000's..... So, if they've hid 100 and logged them all, I don't think it's really padding their find stats.....

 

What is it then??

 

Statistically insignificant data.

 

Thanks Chad. That's what I was gettin' at.

 

Aren't all finds insignificant then? I asked for your definition of what the difference is between having merely 20 finds and having 1000's. I would say there isn't any difference, if you log a find it still counts in your stats, right?

 

I could care less if someone wants to log thousands of finds one after another on their own cache, don't think I care about others's stats. I just find this comment strange and would like clarification if you would please.

[knowschad]

Aren't all finds insignificant then? I asked for your definition of what the difference is between having merely 20 finds and having 1000's. I would say there isn't any difference, if you log a find it still counts in your stats, right?

 

I could care less if someone wants to log thousands of finds one after another on their own cache, don't think I care about others's stats. I just find this comment strange and would like clarification if you would please.

 

I believe you got the clarification you asked for. 1/20 is pretty darned significant. 1/1000 is much less so, and 1/10,000 is statistically rather insignificant.

[+tozainamboku]

Aren't all finds insignificant then? I asked for your definition of what the difference is between having merely 20 finds and having 1000's. I would say there isn't any difference, if you log a find it still counts in your stats, right?

 

I could care less if someone wants to log thousands of finds one after another on their own cache, don't think I care about others's stats. I just find this comment strange and would like clarification if you would please.

 

I believe you got the clarification you asked for. 1/20 is pretty darned significant. 1/1000 is much less so, and 1/10,000 is statistically rather insignificant.

I have a "truth in numbers" section in my profile so that puritans can make adjustments to my numbers in case they disagree with some the Found Its I have logged. The point is that if someone has 17,000 finds and they logged the 100 cache they own plus have left 60 replacement caches and maybe have not signed a wet log 80 time they will have found by a puritans count 16,760 caches.

 

But that isn't what is bothering the puritan. The puritan is bothered because that person has been "dishonest" 240 times. I believe that many times the puritans have stated that they don't care about someone else's actual number. What they care about is that there are geoachers who would "lie" even one time. Whether you have 17,000 finds or 70 finds, if you "lie" even once, then the puritans will have condemned you. The biggest issue I have is that some puritans feel that the only motivation to lie is to get a bigger number and therefore any one with a big number is more likely to be a liar. That is like saying that everyone who is rich is likely to be a thief.

[+Ms.Scrabbler]

A few months ago 3 of us put out a group of caches. We set up a name for us "girls on the road" but each cache belonged to just one of us. We logged a find on each other's hide even though we were there when it was hid. The reason for this was so we didn't continue seeing the caches come up as one we needed to find. We did Not log a find on our own. That would be silly since when looking at the map it already shows with a star.

 

We plan to do this again soon and are thinking about having the male 1/2 of our cache name go find the hides (Not as FTF). They would only have the same info that everyone else has from the web site. This would cause a find to come up on our own hides.

 

Others may find fault with this but since we know how and why it happens, well, that's okay, we know we aren't cheating and we know it's not to pad our numbers.

 

I wonder if this kind of thing has happened on other logs to cause this debate.

[+StarBrand]

Outside of an adoption of a cache you once found and maybe a few select (rare) other circumstances, it is usually frowned upon. But there is no rule againist it and the system certainly allows you to do it. I wouldn't though.

[+Hrethgir]

The comment about "padding the find stats"... I only see that being the case when a person has 20 finds and goes to hide 70 caches.... See what I mean?.... Otherwise, some of the geocachers on this forum have fraggin' 1000's of finds, some in the 10,000's..... So, if they've hid 100 and logged them all, I don't think it's really padding their find stats.....

 

What is it then??

 

Statistically insignificant data.

 

Insignifigant to us, maybe, but some people will throw a fit if they lose a single smiley, so 100 Finds on their own hides would be signifigant to them. I still say it's padding thier find stats, no matter how small a percentage, but like I ALSO said, I don't really care, they can play however they want. And some of those people with 1000's of finds, stat padding is how they got that many finds in the first place. I know the vast majority have gone out and found caches that weren't theirs and signed the logs, but there are people out there who are fixated on getting as many finds as possible, no matter how it's done, and you can deny that this happens all you want, but you know it's true. But, once again, I don't care, it doesn't affect me one way or the other.

Edited August 17, 2009 by Hrethgir

[+bflentje]

...but I haven't been able to find it.

We have come across a couple of cache owners who are logging their own caches as finds. I couldn't find anything for or against this, but if you have placed a cache...wouldn't you already know where it is? Therefore, you are not really "finding" it? I hope at least they signed their own logs!

Anyways, throwing this out there for your opinions - thanks!

 

Unless they're FTFing their own caches, why do you care?

[+Rockin Roddy]

Aren't all finds insignificant then? I asked for your definition of what the difference is between having merely 20 finds and having 1000's. I would say there isn't any difference, if you log a find it still counts in your stats, right?

 

I could care less if someone wants to log thousands of finds one after another on their own cache, don't think I care about others's stats. I just find this comment strange and would like clarification if you would please.

 

I believe you got the clarification you asked for. 1/20 is pretty darned significant. 1/1000 is much less so, and 1/10,000 is statistically rather insignificant.

 

I would bet the person who made that comment could answer on their own...wouldn't you?? As for clarification, no, I didn't get it. Are you saying making a find on your own cache is a big significance if you've just started, but no biggie if you've been around for a few years?? I guess I'm missing the point of that comment, the reason I asked for clarification!

[+Rockin Roddy]

Aren't all finds insignificant then? I asked for your definition of what the difference is between having merely 20 finds and having 1000's. I would say there isn't any difference, if you log a find it still counts in your stats, right?

 

I could care less if someone wants to log thousands of finds one after another on their own cache, don't think I care about others's stats. I just find this comment strange and would like clarification if you would please.

 

I believe you got the clarification you asked for. 1/20 is pretty darned significant. 1/1000 is much less so, and 1/10,000 is statistically rather insignificant.

I have a "truth in numbers" section in my profile so that puritans can make adjustments to my numbers in case they disagree with some the Found Its I have logged. The point is that if someone has 17,000 finds and they logged the 100 cache they own plus have left 60 replacement caches and maybe have not signed a wet log 80 time they will have found by a puritans count 16,760 caches.

 

But that isn't what is bothering the puritan. The puritan is bothered because that person has been "dishonest" 240 times. I believe that many times the puritans have stated that they don't care about someone else's actual number. What they care about is that there are geoachers who would "lie" even one time. Whether you have 17,000 finds or 70 finds, if you "lie" even once, then the puritans will have condemned you. The biggest issue I have is that some puritans feel that the only motivation to lie is to get a bigger number and therefore any one with a big number is more likely to be a liar. That is like saying that everyone who is rich is likely to be a thief.

 

I sure hope you don't consider me as a puritan, because I'm not. I have logged my own events, not signed logs (even on FTFs...go figure) and other things a "puritan" (as you like to call them) would frown upon. I am merely asking a question...

[+bflentje]

Outside of an adoption of a cache you once found and maybe a few select (rare) other circumstances, it is usually frowned upon. But there is no rule againist it and the system certainly allows you to do it. I wouldn't though.

 

Only the ultrasenstive, that usually worry about others rather than themselves, frown upon this kind of behavior. The rest of us don't care one way or the other.

[knowschad]

Aren't all finds insignificant then? I asked for your definition of what the difference is between having merely 20 finds and having 1000's. I would say there isn't any difference, if you log a find it still counts in your stats, right?

 

I could care less if someone wants to log thousands of finds one after another on their own cache, don't think I care about others's stats. I just find this comment strange and would like clarification if you would please.

 

I believe you got the clarification you asked for. 1/20 is pretty darned significant. 1/1000 is much less so, and 1/10,000 is statistically rather insignificant.

 

I would bet the person who made that comment could answer on their own...wouldn't you?? As for clarification, no, I didn't get it. Are you saying making a find on your own cache is a big significance if you've just started, but no biggie if you've been around for a few years?? I guess I'm missing the point of that comment, the reason I asked for clarification!

 

The person who made that comment is more than welcome to answer on their own if they chose to. The fact that I also answered your question in no way affects that.

 

I've been around here long enough to know that you're a smart guy and bet that you can figure this out by yourself without asking for clarification.

[+Rockin Roddy]

Aren't all finds insignificant then? I asked for your definition of what the difference is between having merely 20 finds and having 1000's. I would say there isn't any difference, if you log a find it still counts in your stats, right?

 

I could care less if someone wants to log thousands of finds one after another on their own cache, don't think I care about others's stats. I just find this comment strange and would like clarification if you would please.

 

I believe you got the clarification you asked for. 1/20 is pretty darned significant. 1/1000 is much less so, and 1/10,000 is statistically rather insignificant.

 

I would bet the person who made that comment could answer on their own...wouldn't you?? As for clarification, no, I didn't get it. Are you saying making a find on your own cache is a big significance if you've just started, but no biggie if you've been around for a few years?? I guess I'm missing the point of that comment, the reason I asked for clarification!

 

The person who made that comment is more than welcome to answer on their own if they chose to. The fact that I also answered your question in no way affects that.

 

I've been around here long enough to know that you're a smart guy and bet that you can figure this out by yourself without asking for clarification.

 

Obviously, the poster had something on his/her mind, I am wondering just what that was...hence my asking! What I can figure out has no bearing on what the poster meant!

 

THANKS for the ego booster, my friend! I know you're also a pretty smart feller!

[+Unkle Fester]

I have finds that I adopted, and caches I haven't found that I adopted. When I get around to it or have to maintain, If I find the cache, I'll log it. Technically, it's not my hide.

 

Finding your own hides just to pad numbers is cheesy (exceptions have been noted in other posts)

 

But worse is the ability to find the same cache over and over and over and over...

[+Steve&GeoCarolyn]

 

I have a "truth in numbers" section in my profile so that puritans can make adjustments to my numbers in case they disagree with some the Found Its I have logged. The point is that if someone has 17,000 finds and they logged the 100 cache they own plus have left 60 replacement caches and maybe have not signed a wet log 80 time they will have found by a puritans count 16,760 caches.

 

But that isn't what is bothering the puritan. The puritan is bothered because that person has been "dishonest" 240 times. I believe that many times the puritans have stated that they don't care about someone else's actual number. What they care about is that there are geoachers who would "lie" even one time. Whether you have 17,000 finds or 70 finds, if you "lie" even once, then the puritans will have condemned you. The biggest issue I have is that some puritans feel that the only motivation to lie is to get a bigger number and therefore any one with a big number is more likely to be a liar. That is like saying that everyone who is rich is likely to be a thief.

 

But they are concerned about "lying" in only one direction, aren't they? I met someone who says that for quite a while he never logged micros. He found them, but didn't bother to log them. So his numbers are probably wildly inaccurate. Does anyone care about this kind of inaccuracy? Not that I can tell.

 

My personal policy is that I don't log hides that I can't say something nice about or don't remember well enough to write up a log entry. So if I have honestly logged (according to purist doctrine) 100 finds and haven't logged another 20 finds that I found dull or unmemorable, am I dishonest?

 

Can you trust my numbers? Clearly not since they don't include the caches I decided not to log. But from what I can tell from the forum discussions, no one is at all concerned about people whose numbers skew downwards because of selective or slip-shod logging.

 

Carolyn

[+tozainamboku]

 

I have a "truth in numbers" section in my profile so that puritans can make adjustments to my numbers in case they disagree with some the Found Its I have logged. The point is that if someone has 17,000 finds and they logged the 100 cache they own plus have left 60 replacement caches and maybe have not signed a wet log 80 time they will have found by a puritans count 16,760 caches.

 

But that isn't what is bothering the puritan. The puritan is bothered because that person has been "dishonest" 240 times. I believe that many times the puritans have stated that they don't care about someone else's actual number. What they care about is that there are geoachers who would "lie" even one time. Whether you have 17,000 finds or 70 finds, if you "lie" even once, then the puritans will have condemned you. The biggest issue I have is that some puritans feel that the only motivation to lie is to get a bigger number and therefore any one with a big number is more likely to be a liar. That is like saying that everyone who is rich is likely to be a thief.

 

But they are concerned about "lying" in only one direction, aren't they? I met someone who says that for quite a while he never logged micros. He found them, but didn't bother to log them. So his numbers are probably wildly inaccurate. Does anyone care about this kind of inaccuracy? Not that I can tell.

 

My personal policy is that I don't log hides that I can't say something nice about or don't remember well enough to write up a log entry. So if I have honestly logged (according to purist doctrine) 100 finds and haven't logged another 20 finds that I found dull or unmemorable, am I dishonest?

 

Can you trust my numbers? Clearly not since they don't include the caches I decided not to log. But from what I can tell from the forum discussions, no one is at all concerned about people whose numbers skew downwards because of selective or slip-shod logging.

 

Carolyn

In addition to my truth and numbers section in my profile, I have also begun the practice of checking the physical log books when I do maintenance on my caches. If I find a signature in the log of someone who failed to post an online found log, I cross out that name in the log book. If the numbers are to mean something they must be kept accurately.

Edited August 17, 2009 by tozainamboku

[+Jeep_Dog]

 

Can you trust my numbers? Clearly not since they don't include the caches I decided not to log. But from what I can tell from the forum discussions, no one is at all concerned about people whose numbers skew downwards because of selective or slip-shod logging.

 

 

Such a great point! Goodness. I have yet to have anyone get upset with me for the 100 or more caches which I've found and not logged online. Not one fellow cacher seeing it in the log and emailing, not one cache owner emailing me with dissapointment that I had neglected to leave evidence on this listing site.

 

Yet, I was at an event cache where I found a cache (was given the coordinates by the event cache organizer), which had an "ALR" to carry the cache and assosciated heavy chains uphill to a second set of coordinates. OMG. A "purist" in the area made a big stink on the cache listing, in local forums, and pissed about in general (the cache is here if anyone really cares to read the drama and angst) - I was not the cache owner, but from their perspective "placed" the cache and should not have logged it as a find. That same cacher undoubtedly noted some physical caches which I've found yet did not log online, but nary a peep from this sort of "purist" cacher. Interesting, indeed...

[+Jeep_Dog]

In addition to my truth and numbers section in my profile, I have also begun the practice of checking the physical log books when I do maintenance on my caches. If I find a signature in the log of someone who failed to post an online found log, I cross out that name in the log book. If the numbers are to mean something they must be kept accurately.

 

I was in total disagreement with this practice, until I realized the "getting started" section had changed from "find a cache, if you find something/take something, sign the logbook" is now:

 

Register for a free membership.

Click "Hide & Seek a Cache."

Enter your postal code and click "search."

Choose any geocache from the list and click on its name.

Enter the coordinates of the geocache into your GPS Device.

Use your GPS device to assist you in finding the hidden geocache.

Sign the logbook and return the geocache to its original location.

Share your geocaching stories and photos online.

 

Now, I see your perspective in scratching out the names in the logbook.

 

I can relate and understand, but at the same time I'm not saying I would do it, since I do not see the last step of "share your geocaching stories and photos online" as an inclusive requirement to everything that comes before it...

 

Hmmm. Now I'm really getting to think. On a maintenance run, if I find the cache not in the place it was originally hidden, I'm deleting all finds from the time of the previous visit by me, since clearly one of those cachers did not abide by the second to the last step and "return the geocache to its original location."

 

Or, I'll just go have a Landshark and relax, merely sticking to deleting bogus online logs as is listed in the placement guidelines....

[+bittsen]

In addition to my truth and numbers section in my profile, I have also begun the practice of checking the physical log books when I do maintenance on my caches. If I find a signature in the log of someone who failed to post an online found log, I cross out that name in the log book. If the numbers are to mean something they must be kept accurately.

 

I was in total disagreement with this practice, until I realized the "getting started" section had changed from "find a cache, if you find something/take something, sign the logbook" is now:

 

Register for a free membership.

Click "Hide & Seek a Cache."

Enter your postal code and click "search."

Choose any geocache from the list and click on its name.

Enter the coordinates of the geocache into your GPS Device.

Use your GPS device to assist you in finding the hidden geocache.

Sign the logbook and return the geocache to its original location.

Share your geocaching stories and photos online.

 

Now, I see your perspective in scratching out the names in the logbook.

 

I can relate and understand, but at the same time I'm not saying I would do it, since I do not see the last step of "share your geocaching stories and photos online" as an inclusive requirement to everything that comes before it...

 

Hmmm. Now I'm really getting to think. On a maintenance run, if I find the cache not in the place it was originally hidden, I'm deleting all finds from the time of the previous visit by me, since clearly one of those cachers did not abide by the second to the last step and "return the geocache to its original location."

 

Or, I'll just go have a Landshark and relax, merely sticking to deleting bogus online logs as is listed in the placement guidelines....

 

I saw that and said "say what??!!" to myself.

 

A signature in the logbook is proof of the find. You can't just delete the find like that. How could they sign if they didn't find?

 

What the ****??

[+BlueDeuce]

...

There are still disagreements with puritans as what to do on a group find or what to do if the cache owner is with you. There are even some who would relax the signing rule if you take a picture or provide some other "proof" that you found the cache.

...

 

Those are Heretics, all of them.

[Mr.Yuck]

...

There are still disagreements with puritans as what to do on a group find or what to do if the cache owner is with you. There are even some who would relax the signing rule if you take a picture or provide some other "proof" that you found the cache.

...

 

Those are Heretics, all of them.

 

It is well known that us Puritans don't take too kindly to dissent within our ranks. Off with their heads, I say.

[knowschad]

...

There are still disagreements with puritans as what to do on a group find or what to do if the cache owner is with you. There are even some who would relax the signing rule if you take a picture or provide some other "proof" that you found the cache.

...

 

Those are Heretics, all of them.

 

It is well known that us Puritans don't take too kindly to dissent within our ranks. Off with their heads, I say.

 

I'd suggest that we take any cacher that we suspect of logging their own finds (or any other cheat, of course) and dunk them underwater for an hour or so. If they are a real cacher, the Frog will surely protect them and they shall live.

[+popokiiti]

My numbers are off as I didn't have a geocaching account until I got a computer....yeah, I'm out of the dark ages finally. As far as logging one's own caches....whatever turns your crank, I'm fine with that. Just wish the cache owner had been a little more creative with his/her logs other than "My cache" on each of them. Some caches are very good, some great, some evil (but fun) and all levels of difficulty seem to be covered.

Thanks to each of you for your opinions - I am thinking that the CO is encouraging folks to go to his/her caches, or having fun, from what I have read here.