Jump to content

Muggled


Cachen Bob

Recommended Posts

Logging a find for a muggled cache.

 

I was travelling the New England states, from Ohio, in search of Cache Across America caches. One of the CAA caches was muggled. I took pictures for verification that I was at ground zero and located where the cache was hidden. I did get verification and permission from cache owner to log as a find. As this cache is several hundred miles from my home and part of a required series, would it be okay to log as a find even though I did not technically sign a log book.

Edited by Cachen Bob
Link to comment

Logging a find for a muggled cache.

 

I was travelling the New England states, from Ohio, in search of Cache Across America caches. One of the CAA caches was muggled. I took pictures for verification that I was at ground zero and located where the cache was hidden. I did get verification and permission from cache owner to log as a find. As this cache is several hundred miles from my home and part of a required series, would it be okay to log as a find even though I did not technically sign a log book.

 

I predict the majority around here will say no. :D But if you sent the pics to the cache owner, and they told you to log it, I suppose that's all that matters between you and him. It isn't CAA Pa., is it? That's been in need of serious maintenance for ages.

Link to comment

Some people are okay with it especially with owner permission.

 

I wouldn't, and I have had the same offer. I figure if the cache was missing it's not a find.

 

Edited to add: Plus you might find out later that someone moved the cache 10 feet away. Then to add insult to injury it's found by a newbie with 6 previous finds. :D

Edited by BlueDeuce
Link to comment

Logging a find for a muggled cache.

 

I was travelling the New England states, from Ohio, in search of Cache Across America caches. One of the CAA caches was muggled. I took pictures for verification that I was at ground zero and located where the cache was hidden. I did get verification and permission from cache owner to log as a find. As this cache is several hundred miles from my home and part of a required series, would it be okay to log as a find even though I did not technically sign a log book.

 

Cache owner said it's a find so it's a find but I wouldn't be publicly declaring how it was a find. There are a few purists here who will give you grief about it.

Link to comment

Cache owner said it's a find so it's a find but I wouldn't be publicly declaring how it was a find. There are a few purists here who will give you grief about it.

 

So, people who follow the guidelines are 'purists'? So, people who log finds on caches where they have not found the cache are: Cheaters? Free-spirits? Playing by 'rules' that they make up on the spot?

Link to comment

Cache owner said it's a find so it's a find but I wouldn't be publicly declaring how it was a find. There are a few purists here who will give you grief about it.

 

So, people who follow the guidelines are 'purists'? So, people who log finds on caches where they have not found the cache are: Cheaters? Free-spirits? Playing by 'rules' that they make up on the spot?

 

Ignore it HD. It wasn't even the right label.

Edited by BlueDeuce
Link to comment

Cache owner said it's a find so it's a find but I wouldn't be publicly declaring how it was a find. There are a few purists here who will give you grief about it.

 

So, people who follow the guidelines are 'purists'? So, people who log finds on caches where they have not found the cache are: Cheaters? Free-spirits? Playing by 'rules' that they make up on the spot?

 

I was hoping someone would come along and twist my words. Thank you for stepping up to the plate.

Link to comment

Cache owner said it's a find so it's a find but I wouldn't be publicly declaring how it was a find. There are a few purists here who will give you grief about it.

 

So, people who follow the guidelines are 'purists'? So, people who log finds on caches where they have not found the cache are: Cheaters? Free-spirits? Playing by 'rules' that they make up on the spot?

Not sure what guideline you are talking about. There is a guideline that says you can log a find online after you have signed the physical log book. There is no guideline the other way around (i.e. that you must sign the physical log book before you log your find online). The Easy steps to Geocaching on the getting started page, suggest that after using your GPS device to assist you in finding the hidden geocache, that you sign the logbook and return the geocache to its original location prior to sharing your geocaching stories and photos online. It makes no comment about what type of online log to use. It also says you should use your GPS device to assist you in finding your cache, so if these are the rules all the people who find caches without a GPS device are cheaters.

 

Most people log a "Found It" when there experience hunting the cache amounts to something they want to take credit for - or more precisely they want to mark that they have "completed" this cache and want to mark it off their list. Now cache owners are asked to delete bogus logs, and there are a few people who have been none to simply sit at home and log "Found It" on caches they never even looked for. These logs should be deleted. Cachers who have signed the physical log and then get their logs deleted at least have some proof that they found the cache - assuming the cache or log didn't go missing before the cache owner or someone else can check on it. So I would recommend always signing the physical log. But if a cache owner is happy with your claim of a find even on cache that was "missing" then there is no guideline preventing this.

 

The OP didn't make it clear how he knew the cache was muggled. If you find nothing that is generally not enough proof the that the cache is missing. Perhaps if this was a 1/1 cache and had a true spoiler hint you could make that claim, but unless you actually have found this cache before you can't be sure. Even then, the cache may have been put back in the wrong place so it is still their to be found. If on the the other hand you have found some remains that are clearly identifiable as the cache but there is no log book to sign, some may be more comfortable saying that you can claim a find.

Link to comment

I've got no problem if you log a find, but the goal of the series is to get the numbers. You can't get the numbers if there is no cache there....

 

Well, I'm sure if the cache owner of CAA Mass. was in email contact, and authorized the find, the OP can get the numbers. Good luck getting the missing numbers for CAA Pa. though, which was placed by a high school kid who has long since lost interest in Geocaching. Personally, I'd just post a note and get the numbers via email, but that's just me; I've been labeled a Puritan and Purist, amongst other things. :ph34r:

Link to comment
There is a guideline that says you can log a find online after you have signed the physical log book. There is no guideline the other way around (i.e. that you must sign the physical log book before you log your find online).

 

:ph34r::laughing::laughing::anibad:

 

wtf_small.jpg

:D:P:D

 

That was exactly my reaction.

I suppose there is not much that can be done to convince puritans that you don't have to sign the log to log a found it online. They have repeated the mantra sign the log = online find so much that believe it to be true. The fact that online "Found It" can be logged without signing the physical can be shown to be both de facto (it is done all the time) and de jure (there is no published guideline against it). The closest the puritans can come is that under the current Geocaching.com guidelines they can delete an online found it log if they don't find the name of the cache in the physical log. And in reality we only know that they generally can't delete an online log if fact the cacher has signed the physical log. (Of course you might be able to delete a spoiler log, one that contains foul language, or one that is off-topic such as a log used for spam). So to show a log is bogus, puritans rely on checking the physical log and deleting online logs if the log isn't signed. I'm not certain that given the restrictions Geoaching.com has been putting on cache owners ability to delete logs that they might not someday decide that bogus logs must be judged on other evidence in addition to a lack of a physical signature (for example a cacher logging a large number of finds in disparate areas).

 

There is of course no rule that can force someone to logging a find online when they have not signed the physical log. I have no doubt that some cachers only log caches if they have signed the log. In my experience, however, most cachers will claim an online find in certain situations where they found the cache and that most cache owners will allow these finds to stand in at least some of these situations. I won't go looking for the the chart of Yoda and Darth Vader with Yoda only logging a find when he signed the log and Darth Vader just posting online finds whenever he felt like. In reality nobody condones bogus logs. You have to have found something that you feel entitles you to a find. Many people will log a find if they couldn't sign a log because it was wet or because they lost their pen earlier in the day and got to a cache with no pen or pencil. They might take a picture to prove that they found the cache, or they might not. Sometimes people will claim a find when they couldn't open the cache. Perhaps it got frozen in place in winter or maybe it was just too rusted to open up. Still others might find a destroyed cache, perhaps the Tupperware melted in a forest fire and there is just a glob of plastic with the log book and swag embedded in it. Some may, like the OP, want to claim a find when they find the location of the cache clearly pointed out by the spoiler hint but the cache isn't there and since they are from out of town and not likely to be be back this way they want to mark this as a cache they have completed.

 

Not everyone will agree that they should log a "Found It' in all of these situations. We each have our limits on what we are comfortable with. The puritans of course feel they are "better" than the rest of us since they use only the narrowest definition. But that seems a bit silly considering that this should not be a competition to see who has the most finds. Most people like to check off the caches they have found. To them the hunt is the important part. If at the end of the hunt they feel they have found enough to know they found the cache they will claim it as found. Why should they log a DNF, a note, or write no log at all; and then have to make a trip back to the cache just to bring a pen or a replacement log? There is no hunt to experience, no novel place to go to, just time wasted performing a technicality that could be better spent finding another cache. That is the way they play. There is nothing wrong with playing this way. Perhaps in a few rare instances you could find where they logged a find on something that wasn't the cache - perhaps a decoy or a letterbox that was hidden nearby. If in fact the cache has been previous reported missing (DNF) the Found It log may make it appear the cache is there. A cache owner may skip an needed maintenance visit or briansnat's friend may drive 200 miles to look for it. But these instances are rare. Usually one can be pretty certain that they have found the cache (particularly in the case of a wet log or no pen) and the Found It log is honest (and IMO not bogus). But if the cache owner suspects that their cache was not found they can delete this as a bogus log.

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment

I suppose there is not much that can be done to convince puritans that you don't have to sign the log to log a found it online. They have repeated the mantra sign the log = online find so much that believe it to be true. The fact that online "Found It" can be logged without signing the physical can be shown to be both de facto (it is done all the time) and de jure (there is no published guideline against it). The closest the puritans can come is that under the current Geocaching.com guidelines they can delete an online found it log if they don't find the name of the cache in the physical log. And in reality we only know that they generally can't delete an online log if fact the cacher has signed the physical log. (Of course you might be able to delete a spoiler log, one that contains foul language, or one that is off-topic such as a log used for spam). So to show a log is bogus, puritans rely on checking the physical log and deleting online logs if the log isn't signed. I'm not certain that given the restrictions Geoaching.com has been putting on cache owners ability to delete logs that they might not someday decide that bogus logs must be judged on other evidence in addition to a lack of a physical signature (for example a cacher logging a large number of finds in disparate areas).

 

There is of course no rule that can force someone to logging a find online when they have not signed the physical log. I have no doubt that some cachers only log caches if they have signed the log. In my experience, however, most cachers will claim an online find in certain situations where they found the cache and that most cache owners will allow these finds to stand in at least some of these situations. I won't go looking for the the chart of Yoda and Darth Vader with Yoda only logging a find when he signed the log and Darth Vader just posting online finds whenever he felt like. In reality nobody condones bogus logs. You have to have found something that you feel entitles you to a find. Many people will log a find if they couldn't sign a log because it was wet or because they lost their pen earlier in the day and got to a cache with no pen or pencil. They might take a picture to prove that they found the cache, or they might not. Sometimes people will claim a find when they couldn't open the cache. Perhaps it got frozen in place in winter or maybe it was just too rusted to open up. Still others might find a destroyed cache, perhaps the Tupperware melted in a forest fire and there is just a glob of plastic with the log book and swag embedded in it. Some may, like the OP, want to claim a find when they find the location of the cache clearly pointed out by the spoiler hint but the cache isn't there and since they are from out of town and not likely to be be back this way they want to mark this as a cache they have completed.

 

Not everyone will agree that they should log a "Found It' in all of these situations. We each have our limits on what we are comfortable with. The puritans of course feel they are "better" than the rest of us since they use only the narrowest definition. But that seems a bit silly considering that this should not be a competition to see who has the most finds. Most people like to check off the caches they have found. To them the hunt is the important part. If at the end of the hunt they feel they have found enough to know they found the cache they will claim it as found. Why should they log a DNF, a note, or write no log at all; and then have to make a trip back to the cache just to bring a pen or a replacement log? There is no hunt to experience, no novel place to go to, just time wasted performing a technicality that could be better spent finding another cache. That is the way they play. There is nothing wrong with playing this way. Perhaps in a few rare instances you could find where they logged a find on something that wasn't the cache - perhaps a decoy or a letterbox that was hidden nearby. If in fact the cache has been previous reported missing (DNF) the Found It log may make it appear the cache is there. A cache owner may skip an needed maintenance visit or briansnat's friend may drive 200 miles to look for it. But these instances are rare. Usually one can be pretty certain that they have found the cache (particularly in the case of a wet log or no pen) and the Found It log is honest (and IMO not bogus). But if the cache owner suspects that their cache was not found they can delete this as a bogus log.

Your post is too logical. The emotional will never understand (much less agree with you)

 

I agree with what you are saying.

 

:ph34r:

Link to comment

If you're asking, even with permission of the cache owner, you have your doubts. My suggestion is that, if in doubt, don't do it. But either decision is fine with me. You've done more than your fair share of work searching for this cache and alerting the cache owner, I don't see a problem if you decide to log it as a find with the owner's permission.

Link to comment

I wouldn't but this aint about me. With the information that you have given in conjunction with the impression that you haven't and are concerned about doing so, you simply should not.

My reasoning is you appear to feel something is wrong about doing so and I suspect that even if you got 100 "DO IT's" you would still feel that nagging sensation that you should not, so don't do it until you feel it is right.

If that happens to be never, then so be it.

Link to comment
We each have our limits on what we are comfortable with. The puritans of course feel they are "better" than the rest of us since they use only the narrowest definition. But that seems a bit silly considering that this should not be a competition to see who has the most finds

 

I don't see what is silly about the notion that you ought to find a geocache in order to log a "found it".

In the early days of this sport the idea of logging found its on caches you didn't find was considered ludicrous.

 

Apparently now bogus finds are only not only no longer considered to be bad form, but people who still belive you should find a geocache in order to log a "found it" are called supercilious, silly, narrow minded and puritans.

 

My how things have changed.

Link to comment

If the cache owner and the cache finder (or in this case seeker) have come to an agreement then it's really none of my business. I don't think I'd declare it on the cache page- but only to avoid drama.

 

If it were my cache, I wouldn't extent the "free smiley". Sorry, my cache was eaten by a muggle, but you didn't find the cache.

 

I don't remember ever accepting a "free smiley" for finding the pieces of a cache. I did claim a find on a virtual that I wasn't sure that I'd found until the owner confirmed, but that's a different pile of potatoes.

 

But this:

 

Not sure what guideline you are talking about. There is a guideline that says you can log a find online after you have signed the physical log book. There is no guideline the other way around (i.e. that you must sign the physical log book before you log your find online). The Easy steps to Geocaching on the getting started page, suggest that after using your GPS device to assist you in finding the hidden geocache, that you sign the logbook and return the geocache to its original location prior to sharing your geocaching stories and photos online. It makes no comment about what type of online log to use. It also says you should use your GPS device to assist you in finding your cache, so if these are the rules all the people who find caches without a GPS device are cheaters.

 

You give a link to http://www.geocaching.com/about/. Let me push your search one mouse clicky further to http://www.geocaching.com/about/finding.aspx where you will find directions for what to do after you find the cache. Note step 2.

 

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

 

Call it a guideline, call it a rule, call it a suggestion. Clearly the intent is expressed that you should be signing a log on a traditional cache.

 

I'm not saying the wording and the navigation is perfect, but it is printed on the site contrary to your assertion that it isn't.

Link to comment
In my experience, however, most cachers will claim an online find in certain situations where they found the cache and that most cache owners will allow these finds to stand in at least some of these situations. I won't go looking for the the chart of Yoda and Darth Vader with Yoda only logging a find when he signed the log and Darth Vader just posting online finds whenever he felt like. In reality nobody condones bogus logs. You have to have found something that you feel entitles you to a find.

 

I most;y agree with you on most points. I have claimed finds on caches where I have not signed the log because it was too wet, or I forgot a pencil, or the container was frozen shut. In ever case I was able to prove to the owner via other methods that I had indeed located the cache and touched it enough that we both agreed it was a Find.

 

However I have limits. If the cache has been muggled and is missing there is nothing for me to Find. If the whole point of the game was just to get to ground zero then it would be called Waymarking and no one would bother doing it. :ph34r: In Geocaching, the point is to find the cache, not the spot where the cache once was. I've seen people log a broken McToy as a Find, I've heard of people logging the magnet from a bison tube as a Find, I've known people to log a cache which I KNOW is missing as a Find. It makes me shake my head -- have we really become such a culture of entitlement that we somehow we simply MUST Find EVERY cache?

 

That being said, my response to the OP is: If you and the owner are OK with it, then do it. Just because I personally wouldn't log it as a Find doesn't mean you need to adhere to that same standard.

Link to comment

Logging a fing for a muggled cache would make you a finger, wouldn't it? :ph34r:

 

(sorry, but somebody had to say it!)

 

OK... I have logged some finds on obviously muggled caches, with the owner's concent. I have never logged a find on a cache that I assumed was muggled just because I couldn't find it but thought I knew where it was supposed to be, but if the evidence is strong enough (the empty container, swag strewn around, etc) I wouldn't have any problem logging the find, after attempting to fix up the muggled cache as well as I could.

Link to comment

You give a link to http://www.geocaching.com/about/. Let me push your search one mouse clicky further to http://www.geocaching.com/about/finding.aspx where you will find directions for what to do after you find the cache. Note step 2.

 

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

 

Call it a guideline, call it a rule, call it a suggestion. Clearly the intent is expressed that you should be signing a log on a traditional cache.

 

I'm not saying the wording and the navigation is perfect, but it is printed on the site contrary to your assertion that it isn't.

I'm not saying that the site does suggest that you sign the log when you find the cache. All I am saying is that you can (if the cache owner is willing) log a "found it" online even when you have not signed the physical log in the cache. It has to be something both you and the cache owner are willing to accept. There is no rule that requires a cache owner to delete a "Found It" because someone hasn't signed the log book. The section you link to, while it says to log your experience online doesn't even mention that you should use a "Found It" log. If you want to read more into that section, you could say logging a DNF is against the "Rules". I just don't understand how people can convinced themselves that just because you believe there should be a rule that there must be one and will read into any comment they can find on the website something that isn't there. The best you can do is say that the TPTB seem to believe that you should sign the physical log when you find the cache and that you should log it online as well. Lots of people don't log finds online even after they have signed the physical log, but you don't call them cheaters. Why not? They don't seem to follow the instructions that Groundspeak gives out.

 

I haven't been around as long a briansnat but I would venture a guess that people have been logging "Found It" online when they didn't sign the log since the start. If they forgot a pen and one wasn't in the cache or if the log book was too wet to write in or was missing, I'll bet there were always people who would log "Found It" on these. There may not have been so many that logged a "Found It" because they thought they found the right hiding place. After all there were fewer caches then and people would feel that they could come back and search some more or prehaps return after the owner checked on the cache.

 

Do I think you should log a find because you think you found the place where a cache was hidden? No. But I don't think there is any need to refer to someone who does a cheater. They know they didn't find the cache, but they choose for accounting purposes to log it as find. If they are comfortable doing this it doesn't bother me.

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment
We each have our limits on what we are comfortable with. The puritans of course feel they are "better" than the rest of us since they use only the narrowest definition. But that seems a bit silly considering that this should not be a competition to see who has the most finds

 

I don't see what is silly about the notion that you ought to find a geocache in order to log a "found it".

In the early days of this sport the idea of logging found its on caches you didn't find was considered ludicrous.

 

Apparently now bogus finds are only not only no longer considered to be bad form, but people who still believe you should find a geocache in order to log a "found it" are called supercilious, silly, narrow minded and puritans.

 

My how things have changed.

Right on Brian! My thoughts exactly.

Link to comment

Logging a find for a muggled cache.

 

I was travelling the New England states, from Ohio, in search of Cache Across America caches. One of the CAA caches was muggled. I took pictures for verification that I was at ground zero and located where the cache was hidden. I did get verification and permission from cache owner to log as a find. As this cache is several hundred miles from my home and part of a required series, would it be okay to log as a find even though I did not technically sign a log book.

 

No, it would not be OK. "Technically"? No, there was no logbook, ergo you did not sign it. There is nothing "technical" about that.

Edited by Team Cotati
Link to comment
I suppose there is not much that can be done to convince puritans that you don't have to sign the log to log a found it online.

One thing that might be done would be to stop using insulting terms to refer to them. It's not exactly an indicator that you want to engage in a productive conversation.

Fundamentalist maybe?

Link to comment
I suppose there is not much that can be done to convince puritans that you don't have to sign the log to log a found it online.

One thing that might be done would be to stop using insulting terms to refer to them. It's not exactly an indicator that you want to engage in a productive conversation.

 

I'm sorry but which term in there is 'insulting'? Must be an inside joke.

Link to comment

Thank you to everyone that responded.

 

I have read each response carefully and have decided to post a ‘Found it”.

 

I will start with the facts: 1) Cache Across America – Massachusetts, 2) Cache was confirmed to be muggled by other cachers and CO, 3) I ‘found’ exact location of intended hiding spot of cache – confirmed by CO, 4) Upon verification, CO did send me the CAA code and stated that I could log as a find, and 5) cache is over 500 miles from my home and I do not plan on returning in the foreseeable future.

 

My observations from replies to this posting and other forum postings are as follows. Geocaching has evolved over time. For the early cachers – Did you ever expect to be searching for a micro in a guard rail at a mall parking lot? We each have our own reasons for caching but most of all it must remain fun and safe.

 

Most of the geocaches that I find, and don’t find, have taken me to some great places. Each place has something new to offer and learn; yes even the mico in the mall parking lot. If geocaching is a sport for you, please keep score and follow the rules & guidelines. I have decided that geocaching is a hobby for me. I will ‘stop and smell the roses’ and have fun along the way.

Link to comment

...I was travelling the New England states, from Ohio, in search of Cache Across America caches. One of the CAA caches was muggled...

 

This is a request for opinions and my opinion is that I would not feel good about logging a Found It when the cache was missing, relocated or otherwise not actually found. And especially if it was to be used as a qualifying requirement of a challenge cache.

 

Many cache owners will award finds when a container is not found. This is a friendly offer and I used to do it myself but doesn't really make sense. Finding a cache means finding something physical (earthcaches excluded).

 

In order to log a Found It we should actually FIND something. I do not agree that a log has to be signed in every situation. There are some situations where signing the log is not possible.

 

For muggled caches, if any part of the container is found and a preponderance of the evidence tells us that it is the currently active container then we have found that cache. It would be good to bag up the remains and sign something to leave with the contents but in any event it has been found.

 

For an intact and viable cache the container should be opened and the log signed. We should not claim a find if we see the container but don't retrieve it for whatever reason.

 

If the container can't be opened we should sign the outside of the container or attach some kind of proof of visit. It is not our fault that the lid is jammed shut.

 

Cache owners should not AWARD cache finds for effort, good behavior, or any other "feel-good" reasons.

 

(There you have it from my caching world.)

Link to comment

Thank you to everyone that responded.

 

I have read each response carefully and have decided to post a ‘Found it”.

 

I will start with the facts: 1) Cache Across America – Massachusetts, 2) Cache was confirmed to be muggled by other cachers and CO, 3) I ‘found’ exact location of intended hiding spot of cache – confirmed by CO, 4) Upon verification, CO did send me the CAA code and stated that I could log as a find, and 5) cache is over 500 miles from my home and I do not plan on returning in the foreseeable future.

 

My observations from replies to this posting and other forum postings are as follows. Geocaching has evolved over time. For the early cachers – Did you ever expect to be searching for a micro in a guard rail at a mall parking lot? We each have our own reasons for caching but most of all it must remain fun and safe.

 

Most of the geocaches that I find, and don’t find, have taken me to some great places. Each place has something new to offer and learn; yes even the mico in the mall parking lot. If geocaching is a sport for you, please keep score and follow the rules & guidelines. I have decided that geocaching is a hobby for me. I will ‘stop and smell the roses’ and have fun along the way.

 

You have provided some rationalization for why you should log a find but the object of this game, where physical caches are concerned, has not changed in any degree since the beginning. Your "facts" don't really support a find of a cache. They do suggest that you want to log the challenge cache badly enough that you will compromise the intent of the game to do it.

 

Simply because some folks have logged finds of caches that were not, in fact, found does not mean that the game has evolved. This argument has been around since the gc forums started.

 

I once claimed finds for replacing missing containers and offered to award finds to folks for non-cache find actions. I don't do either of those anymore because it make no sense to do so.

Link to comment
I suppose there is not much that can be done to convince puritans that you don't have to sign the log to log a found it online.

One thing that might be done would be to stop using insulting terms to refer to them. It's not exactly an indicator that you want to engage in a productive conversation.

Fundamentalist maybe?

 

How about traditionalist? Or maybe just geocachers. The others may be having a blast at whatever they are doing but it ain't geocaching.

Link to comment

I'm really looking forward to the answers on this one. It is a sideways continuation of the discussion as to whether the guidelines or rules should be followed to the letter, or to the spirit in which the particular cacher believes they were written.

 

You go to a cache location, find the container, find the log, it is totally full and pretty much destroyed by handling, absolutely no clear space on which to put your signature. You take a spare log out of your pack, enter the date and your name, and attach it to the existing log sheet. Return to your computer, log the cache as found, noting that you added a new sheet because the original was full.

 

Since you did not actually sign "the log" but a piece of paper you brought with you, should the find count?

 

I predict about a 65/35 split on this one. (65% it counts)

Link to comment
Since you did not actually sign "the log" but a piece of paper you brought with you, should the find count?

You should start a new thread for this. I predict a lot less passion than what's in this thread, and the vote to be much more in favor than a 65/35 split.

 

I'd rather leave it here, looking for the passion. Maybe I should change the situation. You find the cache, the container has the cache ID on it, and the standard GC disclaimer and writeup, there is swag and 2 travel bugs inside, but the log sheet is missing. Now, does it count, since there is no log to sign, other than the one you are about to provide?

 

Where I am headed...

If the community feels this is OK, is the situation really different than if all you found is a container without the lid (it had the cache ID on it) and no log? Or, no container at all, but the depression in the grass where it was, and some swag, and 2 bugs, still no log. Where is the dividing line that says "THIS IS NO LONGER A CACHE"?

 

In all of these situations, you did not sign the log, but you found the cache.

Edited by patned
Link to comment

In all of these situations, you did not sign the log, but you found the cache.

 

The depression in the ground is not a cache. A travel bug or two on the ground could have fallen out of someone's geopack. A container that is the current container but is now muggled and empty IS the cache regardless whether there is a log in it or not.

 

The log is NOT the cache. The predominant and intuitive practice in the field is to get your signature on something and put that something in the container for the owner or subsequent cachers to find.

Link to comment

I haven't looked to see what the challenge is about or who placed it. The same person could have placed both, the challenge and the muggled cache. But if not, then i could see the owner of the challenge possibly becoming a little irritated if he found out that a bogus find was allowed by one of the owners of a cache in the challenge. I'd be ready to hit the delete button if i was the challenge owner and found this out.

 

To the OP, yes,,, it's definitely irritating that this happened, especially since the cache is so far away. I can also sympathize with you, knowing that you would have gotten it,, if it had been there. I've also had dnfs on caches that i found out later had been muggled. As in your case, several of the owners of those caches emailed, inviting me to log them as finds. This of course, was a nice gesture on their part but the fact remained,,, i did not find the cache. Your's is the same circumstance, you did not find the cache! :D

Link to comment

I originally used the term purist in this thread. It was another cacher who suggested that puritan was a better term than purist. I began using it because the word puritan has come to mean anyone excessively concerned with the moral behavior of others. The Puritan's obession with morality and purity lead them to ban all sorts of entertainment and even to not celebrate certain holidays for fear the merrymaking would lead them into impure thought. That seems to be the case with some purist. The use of the Found It log when the physical log hasn't been signed is treated as a moral flaw and the people who do this are portrayed as evil.

 

Most people who follow a less strict logging practice do so because they see geocaching as fun pastime. While they may include people who are competitive about numbers of finds, the people who log Find when they didn't sign the log are not doing this for a smiley but instead because the Found Log has the second purpose of marking a cache as completed so that it doesn't show up in future searches. If these people feel they have completed the cache because they know exactly where it was hidden they see no reason to return to perform a technicality of signing the log. It just isn't that important a part of finding a cache. The people who make these logs are doing so because they had fun searching for the cache and they found something that they are satisfied with. They sometimes see any puritan effort to delete their logs as some fuddyduddy who just wants to suck all the fun out of geocaching by imposing unnecessary strict rules.

 

Now there may be many who feel that only when they have signed the physical log can they be certain that they have completed all that is necessary to find the cache. They personally do not log that Found It till they have signed the log. While these people may be purists they are not necessarily puritans. They may not feel that people who sometimes log a find without having signed a log are evil. They may even say good for them if that is how they want to play. In threads like this I sometimes lump these players in with the puritans and this is not my intention. Both fizzymagic and briansnat are not puritans in my eyes. While they are sometimes critical of some logging practices, neither resort to calling the people who do them evil or saying that the Gecoaching is being destroyed by cheaters. So I apologize if they are offended by being lumped in with puritans.

Link to comment

I originally used the term purist in this thread. It was another cacher who suggested that puritan was a better term than purist. I began using it because the word puritan has come to mean anyone excessively concerned with the moral behavior of others. The Puritan's obession with morality and purity lead them to ban all sorts of entertainment and even to not celebrate certain holidays for fear the merrymaking would lead them into impure thought. That seems to be the case with some purist. The use of the Found It log when the physical log hasn't been signed is treated as a moral flaw and the people who do this are portrayed as evil.

 

 

So it comes from a Lowracer sock puppet account? And a pretty funny sock puppet name, I might add. I'm sure he was just kidding. Well, you and Sbell111 (and only you and sbell111) can continue to label people with the moniker, if it floats your boats. :D

Edited by TheWhiteUrkel
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...
×
×
  • Create New...