Muggled

[+Team Cotati]

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.

 

Good grief.

[+Castle Mischief]

I'm not saying that the site does suggest that you sign the log when you find the cache.

 

I think you might have left a 't off the word "does" up there, but what you said was this:

 

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 link that I provided gives a numbered sequence of events. I think it's generally accepted in a sequence of events that you perform one before the other. In that sequence sign the log comes before "log your experience online".

 

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.

 

If the CO and the seeker have an agreement then that's their business, as I've said.

 

There's no rule requiring the CO to delete a non-signed "found it" log, but there are statements that support the CO deleting that same non-signed "found it" if they so desire.

 

Is anybody even debating this? Is anybody trying to push COs to delete logs were the seeker did not sign? I see plenty of preferences stating that the would delete such a find on their own cache and a desire for other COs to do the same, but I don't see anybody trying to champion the cause.

 

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".

 

Did I say that the seekers should always use a "found it" log? It says "log your experience online". If you didn't find it then that's your experience. I don't see the logic in your conclusion.

 

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.

 

Yeah me either.

 

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.

 

There's a reason for that- THEY ARE FINDING THE CACHE.

 

 

How can these two statements that you've made co-exist?

 

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 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.

[+tozainamboku]

I probably shouldn't waste my breath.

 

I'm not saying that the site does suggest that you sign the log when you find the cache.

 

I think you might have left a 't off the word "does" up there,

Correct, the site does suggest you sign the log when you find the cache as in the section you linked to.

 

but what you said was this:

 

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 link that I provided gives a numbered sequence of events. I think it's generally accepted in a sequence of events that you perform one before the other. In that sequence sign the log comes before "log your experience online".

The site has a specific section for guidelines for placing caches and getting them listed on the site. There is no equivalent section for guidelines for logging caches, only sections that describe as certain set of steps that are involved in hunting caches. You can take these sections as guidelines or rules, I don't read them that way. Later I will explain that even if you take them as guidelines for logging, you have to stretch a bit to come up with a connection between signing the log and using the Found It log. The site decided to put a guideline for logging physical caches in the guidelines for listing a cache. This was done to explain a change to the listing guidelines regarding ALR caches. The guideline states that "geocaches can be logged online as Found once the physical log has been signed." It says nothing about whether a geocache may be logged online as Found if the physical log was not signed but the cache finder and owner agree that the cache was found.

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.

 

If the CO and the seeker have an agreement then that's their business, as I've said.

So we agree that you can log a find without signing the log if the cache owner agrees?

 

There's no rule requiring the CO to delete a non-signed "found it" log, but there are statements that support the CO deleting that same non-signed "found it" if they so desire.

 

Is anybody even debating this? Is anybody trying to push COs to delete logs were the seeker did not sign? I see plenty of preferences stating that the would delete such a find on their own cache and a desire for other COs to do the same, but I don't see anybody trying to champion the cause.

Cache owners are required to delete bogus logs. My argument is that not sign the physical log is not, by itself, enough to make a log bogus. Signing the physical log, assuming the cache or log doesn't subsequently go missing, is a pretty good proof that an online log is not bogus.

 

There are several people telling the OP here that despite the fact that the cache owner agreed that he could log a find he shouldn't. Not "I wouldn't and here's why" but he shouldn't and if he does he is cheating. So long as you are comfortable with the OP logging a find with the agreement of the CO, I can accept this stand. I myself would not have logged a find on this cache nor would I have changed my DNF to the find it the CO offered.

 

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".

 

Did I say that the seekers should always use a "found it" log? It says "log your experience online". If you didn't find it then that's your experience. I don't see the logic in your conclusion.

I've look at the section you linked to again. It says "Hurray! You found your first geocache. Congratulations! Now what?" and then list several steps. So my reading is you have found the cache, now here are several things to do. So the question becomes is it cheating to skip any of these things? Do you take note of the style and method of this hide. Where did this geocache bring you? Enjoy the location? If not have you cheated? When you sign the logbook with your name do you include the date and a few words about your experience? What about on micro when there isn't much space. If you haven't followed this step to the letter is it cheating. Does the owner have the right to delete your cheater's log because when you traded you didn't leave something that is of equal or greater value or when you replace the cache you didn't put the same rocks back on top? Even if you marked a waypoint for the trailhead do you use the waypoint you created as a helpful guide for your return? Finally, when someone gets home and doesn't log their experience online, I don't hear a great outcry that these people are cheating. And as I pointed out this step doesn't say what type to use. Would it make sense to log a DNF if you found the cache and had simply forgot to sign the log? The caches is there, you found it. In writing your experience, I would think the Found It log is the most appropriate to use. This thread is of course about a cacher who wants to log a find when they only found the place the cache used to be. And I have to agree with the purist on this that I wouldn't log this as a find. A DNF seems to be more appropriate in this case. But I just can't get real excited if someone uses the "wrong" log type. They obviously feel they found something or they want to use the Found It log to mark this cache as completed.

Edited October 16, 2009 by tozainamboku

[+Castle Mischief]

There's no way I'm going to wade through broken quote tags to try and figure that out.

[+tozainamboku]

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.

 

Yeah me either.

So stop inventing rules that aren'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.

 

There's a reason for that- THEY ARE FINDING THE CACHE.

 

 

How can these two statements that you've made co-exist?

 

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 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.

TPTB have provide newbies with a simple explanation of a cache hunt and the logging practices. These may in fact be the vision that they have for all caches. But reality sets in. One soon gets into situations that are not so black and white. A log is missing, A log is too wet to sign. You find the remains of a cache that was destroyed in fire or emptied out by muggles or animals. What do you do then? Purist can make up a simple rule not to log these unless they have signed the physical log. It sometimes works to their advantage. They can tell if what they found is really the cache or if it is a decoy or a piece from another game like letterboxing. I would suggest to all beginners to sign the physical log because that way they know they have found the cache (and they have left proof in case you get a cache owner who suspects every log as being bogus). But for most people signing the log is a formality that really isn't part of why they hunt caches. If they are unable to sign the log for a good reason or if they simply forget, they still log online that they found the cache, and everyone (except for a few puritans) is happy . My contention is not that you shouldn't sign the log, but that in most cases it is unnecessary. You know you found the cache, the cache owner has no reason to believe you didn't find the cache. Other cachers have your log to describe your experience and know the cache is there but may need a replacement log or a new pencil or some TOTT to get the container opened or even, in some cases, a replacement cache (with the owner's permission).

 

Had to break it in two to get quotes to work.

[+baloo&bd]

Anybody remember what the thread is about?

 

Rather than arguing whether or not people should follow the guidelines for signing the log, the OP is talking about the fact that they found a spot where they thought the cache should be and requested logging a find for something that was not there.

 

As an owner of a CAA cache that has gone missing, I would never allow this, lucky for me those seeking mine the day or two it went missing had enough common sense not to even ask and they were from "several hundred miles".

 

If you want to debate, debate about whether or not it is possible to find something that isn't there.

[+Castle Mischief]

So we agree that you can log a find without signing the log if the cache owner agrees?

 

We could back and forth on this all day, but it really comes down to this one question and I've already stated my opinion but here it goes again in detail.

 

I agree that if some other CO and some other seeker both agree that the seeker can claim a "found it" then goodie for them. However, if asked for my opinion, I may not agree with the reasons that they let the "found it" stand. I can still have an opinion on their decision and not involve myself in their decision.

 

And back to the main point of the thread: My opinion on allowing "found it" logs to stand for caches that are not physically there to be found is that both the CO and the seeker are not geocaching when this happens. They are Waymarking, or POI-marking or something else.

 

I do not think that third parties that are not involved in the hiding or the finding should be trying to dispute this agreement- excepting a representative of Groundspeak. It's their sandbox. (But I can still have an opinion...)

 

I do not agree that you may claim any of my caches without signing the log. I do not plan on claiming any of my finds without signing the log.*

 

 

 

 

*If you dig long enough through my finds there is an exception to this. I had the container in my hand, I had the log in my hand, I had a pen. The log was in a secondary container for waterproofing purposes. I could not remove the log without shattering this secondary container. I took a picture of me holding the log in the secondary container. Removing the log was not specifically part of that caching experience it was just an accident that the log had become jammed in so well. I sent a message to the owner and we had an agreement.

Edited October 16, 2009 by Castle Mischief

[knowschad]

Anybody remember what the thread is about?

About two pages at this point.

[+Castle Mischief]

Anybody remember what the thread is about?

About two pages at this point.

 

*rimshot*

[+Sagefox]

My opinion on allowing "found it" logs to stand for caches that are not physically there to be found is that both the CO and the seeker are not geocaching when this happens.

 

I strongly agree.

 

I have no idea where they get the idea that it is o.k. to log a find in this situation.

 

I do not think that third parties that are not involved in the hiding or the finding should be trying to dispute this agreement- excepting a representative of Groundspeak. It's their sandbox. (But I can still have an opinion...)

 

I strongly disagree.

 

These pages are for opinions and if we held back disputing those opinions because we are not party to the find then how would the points be discussed? I have changed some of my geocaching practices in the past due to forum arguments by third parties.

 

I had the container in my hand, I had the log in my hand, I had a pen. The log was in a secondary container for waterproofing purposes. I could not remove the log without shattering this secondary container. I took a picture of me holding the log in the secondary container. Removing the log was not specifically part of that caching experience it was just an accident that the log had become jammed in so well. I sent a message to the owner and we had an agreement.

 

If anyone has a problem with this Found It than maybe some type of stereotyping name might be needed.

[+Castle Mischief]

 

I do not think that third parties that are not involved in the hiding or the finding should be trying to dispute this agreement- excepting a representative of Groundspeak. It's their sandbox. (But I can still have an opinion...)

 

I strongly disagree.

 

These pages are for opinions and if we held back disputing those opinions because we are not party to the find then how would the points be discussed? I have changed some of my geocaching practices in the past due to forum arguments by third parties.

 

I wasn't clear- discussion, opinions and disagreeing are one thing. By "dispute" I meant involving themselves in some way as to try and have these logs removed or by posting notes to a cache page.

 

In retrospect, maybe that's somewhat of a straw-man on my part. Has anybody actually ever done this? Has anybody tried to have "found it" logs deleted on a cache that wasn't theirs because they felt it shouldn't stand?

[knowschad]

In retrospect, maybe that's somewhat of a straw-man on my part. Has anybody actually ever done this? Has anybody tried to have "found it" logs deleted on a cache that wasn't theirs because they felt it shouldn't stand?

 

 

[+Sagefox]

I wasn't clear- discussion, opinions and disagreeing are one thing. By "dispute" I meant involving themselves in some way as to try and have these logs removed or by posting notes to a cache page.

 

I see what you mean. Forum type disputes are definitely inappropriate on cache pages.

[+DanOCan]

Anybody remember what the thread is about?

 

Rather than arguing whether or not people should follow the guidelines for signing the log, the OP is talking about the fact that they found a spot where they thought the cache should be and requested logging a find for something that was not there.

 

**snip**

 

If you want to debate, debate about whether or not it is possible to find something that isn't there.

 

As I see it, here is the root of the problem:

 

We are too quick to define "the find" as a single act, when there are two distinct components to it: the physical real world find and the online virtual find aka "Found It" log.

 

You can perform the online portion of the find as long as two conditions are met: 1) you agree to do so 2) the cache owner allow you to do so. As long as both conditions are met you can enter "Found It" and take your smiley. The online logging portion of "the find" has NOTHING to do with the real world. If I could find willing cache owners, I could sit here and log "Found It" all day on caches all over the world.

 

However, in the physical world, you simply cannot find something that is not there. If the cache is muggled you cannot find it, no way, no how.

 

If I don't do the find in the physical world I will not use a "Found It" log in the virtual world. I believe this was the original intent of the GPS stash hunt and that is the way I play because I believe it is the correct way to play.

 

For others such as the OP, the fact that he did not locate the cache in the physical world doesn't matter and he will log the cache online anyway. Since there are only two parties involved I stay out of it, unless I happen to be one of them. I disagree with this method because these "bogus" Found It logs can lead other searchers to believe a missing cache actually exists.

 

For yet another group they are simply connect to find caches in the physical world and never bother with the virtual world. This in no way affects me so I don't care what they do.

 

So, this is a long-winded way of saying never confuse the physical find with the virtual find -- they are two distinct things with two distinct requirements and only one of them requires the physical cache to be in place.

[+jbtech]

I agree "found it" means you physically found it. I have had some caches that I spent a great deal of time looking for and came to the concussion that it must have gone missing. Only to find that the next cacher found it. It’s just a fact of caching.

If the cache has truly gone missing and you log a find, this is misleading to the next cacher.

If you contact the Co and they confirm it missing and it is needed as part of a series, it’s up to the CO if they think you should have the needed "code" of whatever. It should still be logged as a DNF.

My opinion only.