Has this ever happened to one of your caches?

May 16, 2010

I have an "in plain sight cache" that has received a few strange logs so I went to check on it today. I had checked on it in March and other than the log being a bit damp it was in fine shape. I had replaced the log at that time. Today when I checked, the cache was fine and the log was perfectly dry. That's funny, because on May 8, a found log contained the following "could not sign the log due to being very wet". With my curiosity aroused I hunted around and lo-and-behold found that someone om May 10, 2009, that's a year ago, had placed a signed piece of paper in a plastic bag and placed it on the ground under a rock in the vicinity of the actual cache. The cache has been logged as found approx 28 times since last May but the false logsheet contains 8-10 signatures, not certain because it's a bit of a mess.

I'm not anal about these things and intend to let things stand but just wanted your opinion on this type of situation and from reading the forums quite often I expect that there will be some opinions out there.

I added the following note to the cache this evening.

"I went by today to check on this cache and it is alive and well.

HOWEVER, it seems that back in May, 2009 someone could not find the cache and placed a log in a plastic bag under a rock in the general vicinity of the cache. Some others have found this false log and signed it. I will not delete your finds but you may want to go and find the real cache as it is a unique hide."

2k · May 16, 2010

Quite frankly, I think it sux that someone would throw down a log like that. I would be more irritated than you seem to be.

6.1k · May 16, 2010

I would e-mail everyone that logged the fake cache and tell them that they did not find it, but leave their logs alone. Next, I would drink a double Bacardi 151 and coke and put on some Grateful Dead and forget about it.

May 17, 2010

I would e-mail everyone that logged the fake cache and tell them that they did not find it, but leave their logs alone. Next, I would drink a double Bacardi 151 and coke and put on some Grateful Dead and forget about it.

Ah yep,, cept make mine a bottle of Cabernet

7.2k · May 17, 2010

I'd delete all of their logs and add a note saying, "You can thank the J****** who dropped a throw down. Now go back out and sign the log. Thank you for your attention."

...or not.

Really, it's not the fault of the person who thought they were finding the right cache. Few caches are marked with cache name or waypoint. The Proximity Rule is to thank for that. So, few check the cache to see if it's the right cache and when there's been a throw-down few think to check. They'll even over look obvious differences in description and size.

No, who you ought to be peeved with is the cacher, and those like him who think it's okay, that dropped the throw down.

Honestly, I'd probably only delete the log of person to dropped the throw down. He's the one who didn't find anything.

2.2k · May 17, 2010

Oh man! What a bummer. I personally have not experienced this with any of my caches, but that's pretty rude of that person; either that or completely oblivious on their part if they thought they were helping. I have to admit that I've wondered if some of the caches I've found over the years were in fact throw downs...

I think you're handling it calmly and rationally.

May 17, 2010

If you compare the logs on gc.com to those in the real cache and those on the throw down, you should be able to send e-mails to everyone who signed the throw down, i.e. everyone who is not on the real log. Tell them what happened and suggest they find the real cache, but do not delete their logs. You might be able to figure out who left the throw down, i.e. the first name on the throw down or the first name on gc.com that is not on the real log. Send that person(s) an e-mail asking about how they came to sign the throw down. Depending on their answer, you can decide what to do.

1.9k · May 17, 2010

two of my hardest ones both have had throwdowns[a 5/1.5 and a 4.5/2]

I can see for hard to find thinking its gone to have these but a in plain sight 1/1 why?

May 17, 2010

It's actually a 3.0/1.0. Some seasoned cachers had problems finding it while some newbies came up with a "quick find".

If you compare the logs on gc.com to those in the real cache and those on the throw down, you should be able to send e-mails to everyone who signed the throw down, i.e. everyone who is not on the real log. Tell them what happened and suggest they find the real cache, but do not delete their logs.

I thought about that but it's difficult to read the log on the throw down as it was wet and not very legible. That's one of the reasons that iI posted the above quoted note in the logs.

I guess the thing that really irks me is there was no mention of anyone doing any maintenance to the cache in the logs.

7.3k · May 17, 2010

Ouch. No, I don't recall dealing with quite this situation.

I'd not do anything at this point (except have a nice wheat beer to console myself)

Unlike some others here, who have suggested emailing those who found the throwdown, I wouldn't bother those cachers, even if the signatures were clear.

Maybe if it were clear who threw the baggie down in the first place, I'd contact them. But probably not.

I did have a couple of cachers throw down a film can and log a find on it. I let that stand, although I fretted about it quite a lot. (I had noted on the cache page that the cache was probably gone due to flooding, but hadn't been willing to ford the very high water to check it. They did, and it was missing.

Part of me admired the trip they'd made. The other part of me was annoyed that they weren't willing to take both the risk in the getting across the ford at high water, and the DNF. I would have. When water levels got back to my comfort level, I replaced the film can with another decon.

3.1k · May 17, 2010

Lisdowney and I found a fake container and a log book at a unique D/T cache in Michigan. We didn't realize it until we got home and a subsequent cacher found the real cache and noted a bunch of finders' names were missing.

We changed our finds to notes. Lisdowney drove 800 km round trip back to sign the real log book.

It was an important cache we needed for the California Fizzy.

May 17, 2010

Oh well, wouldn't worry too much about it.

Something nearly identical happened at one of mine recently. It was a small container that was hidden in a tricky way by a guardrail. You could not see the cache itself and had to discover the "door" to find the cache inside.

This was rated a 3/1 and the first series of loggers seemed to like it.

Then the next slew of loggers put "TFTC" and pretty much nothing else. Went by and found the cache, out in the open, just sitting on the guardrail!

What I want to know is what motivated the first finder who placed it back differently than found.

I put a note on the cache page to say that it had been restored, the difficulty rating really should be a 3, and anyone who finds it to be a 1/1 should please let me know. Didn't delete any of the logs of the people who grabbed an easy guardrail cache, although I was tempted. The other thought was to change it to a 1/1, archive it and re-list it.

8.6k · May 17, 2010

Lisdowney and I found a fake container and a log book at a unique D/T cache in Michigan. We didn't realize it until we got home and a subsequent cacher found the real cache and noted a bunch of finders' names were missing.

We changed our finds to notes. Lisdowney drove 800 km round trip back to sign the real log book.

It was an important cache we needed for the California Fizzy.

Really? We're gonna put you up for Geocacher of the Year! :huh:

3.1k · May 17, 2010

Lisdowney and I found a fake container and a log book at a unique D/T cache in Michigan. We didn't realize it until we got home and a subsequent cacher found the real cache and noted a bunch of finders' names were missing.

We changed our finds to notes. Lisdowney drove 800 km round trip back to sign the real log book.

It was an important cache we needed for the California Fizzy.

Really? We're gonna put you up for Geocacher of the Year!

Actually you should be putting Lisdowney up, not me. He drove back to find the correct container. I haven't logged the find yet.

I don't know of many cachers that would not want to legitimize their find when it was being used for a fizzy challenge as prestigous as the original fizzy. I know a couple, but not many.

May 17, 2010

Lisdowney and I found a fake container and a log book at a unique D/T cache in Michigan. We didn't realize it until we got home and a subsequent cacher found the real cache and noted a bunch of finders' names were missing.

We changed our finds to notes. Lisdowney drove 800 km round trip back to sign the real log book.

It was an important cache we needed for the California Fizzy.

Really? We're gonna put you up for Geocacher of the Year!

that award isn't available until 2014. briansnat has it locked up 'til then.

2.6k · May 17, 2010

Ugh. Throwdowns.

The first signature in the false cache is likely to be the thrower-downer. I'd be highly tempted to confirm if that is the case and delete that one. The other signers are blameless, but that guy just wouldn't take his DNF.

Very poor sportsmanship.

3.1k · May 17, 2010

Lisdowney and I found a fake container and a log book at a unique D/T cache in Michigan. We didn't realize it until we got home and a subsequent cacher found the real cache and noted a bunch of finders' names were missing.

We changed our finds to notes. Lisdowney drove 800 km round trip back to sign the real log book.

It was an important cache we needed for the California Fizzy.

Really? We're gonna put you up for Geocacher of the Year!

that award isn't available until 2014. briansnat has it locked up 'til then.

That just kills it then. We will be in Witness Protection by 2013 and we won't want the publicity.

3.8k · May 17, 2010

Ugh. Throwdowns.

The first signature in the false cache is likely to be the thrower-downer. I'd be highly tempted to confirm if that is the case and delete that one. The other signers are blameless, but that guy just wouldn't take his DNF.

Very poor sportsmanship.

That would be my approach precisely. I wouldn't even email the guy unless he emails first after getting the deleted log message.

3.8k · May 17, 2010

Lisdowney and I found a fake container and a log book at a unique D/T cache in Michigan. We didn't realize it until we got home and a subsequent cacher found the real cache and noted a bunch of finders' names were missing.

We changed our finds to notes. Lisdowney drove 800 km round trip back to sign the real log book.

It was an important cache we needed for the California Fizzy.

Really? We're gonna put you up for Geocacher of the Year!

that award isn't available until 2014. briansnat has it locked up 'til then.

That just kills it then. We will be in Witness Protection by 2013 and we won't want the publicity.

Another thread hijacked. Thanks Tequila and Bulldog.

10.2k · May 17, 2010

Ugh. Throwdowns.

The first signature in the false cache is likely to be the thrower-downer. I'd be highly tempted to confirm if that is the case and delete that one. The other signers are blameless, but that guy just wouldn't take his DNF.

Very poor sportsmanship.

If it can be determined who the throw-downer was (and probably can from the first sig and the corresponding online log), I'd delete that in a microsecond. I wouldn't mess with any other logs, and, even though most previous finders will never see your note on the cache page, I wouldn't go emailing them or anything.

So the question is has this ever happened to me? It actually has!! But I couldn't bring myself to delete the log. Why you ask? It was a newbie out on their first day of caching with the Nuvi plucked off their windshield. I was actually silly enough to go check on it, and I never did find the throwdown.

[i loved the multicache! never knew about all that creek history. found the final cache (or where it should have been) It was marked well, but someone has snatched the cache! I didn't come prepared with with a replacement, but we had a teeny plastic zippy lock and] we placed a note inside with a Euro] (my boyfriend is from Spain). [Perhaps it's time to move this cache a bit, maybe the kids nearby discovered it?]

8k · May 17, 2010

two of my hardest ones both have had throwdowns[a 5/1.5 and a 4.5/2]

I can see for hard to find thinking its gone to have these but a in plain sight 1/1 why?

It would seem to me that a 1/1 would be more likely to get a throw down than a cache with a high difficulty rating. My experience is that cachers leave throw downs because they are "certain" that the cache is missing and are doing a favor by replacing it so that the owner doesn't have to make a special trip and so that the next cachers will have something to find. If cachers know that the cache is difficult to find they may be more will to accept it might still be there and not leave a replacement.

Reports like power69's above have me worried though. Is there a trend begining to leave replacements for caches with difficult 5 and 4.5 caches? Even if the cache is missing, how often would one have a replacement with just the right camoflage that must have been there to get such a high difficulty in the first place?

May 17, 2010

Oh my goodness- something else to watch out for. What a rotten way to spoil the game for others.

Hasn't happened to me yet although someone took my micro out of its hiding place and put it in a baggie so they could have room for an ad for chinese restaurant and stuck it under a rock next to the hiding place.

If it were me I'd probably delete the first person's find who apparently did the throwdown and give him a good talking to about not doing that.

2.2k · May 17, 2010

Lisdowney and I found a fake container and a log book at a unique D/T cache in Michigan. We didn't realize it until we got home and a subsequent cacher found the real cache and noted a bunch of finders' names were missing.

We changed our finds to notes. Lisdowney drove 800 km round trip back to sign the real log book.

It was an important cache we needed for the California Fizzy.

We probably would have done the same thing...

May 17, 2010

Happens all the time here in Kansas. We have a cacher that does it so often that it is named after him here. I usually take a little extra time if I know he has been there to look for another container. If I find two then I sign the log that does not have his name on it. I once found the real cache 12 inches away from the throwdown. It is rather annoying.

6.5k · May 17, 2010

Ugh. Throwdowns.

The first signature in the false cache is likely to be the thrower-downer. I'd be highly tempted to confirm if that is the case and delete that one. The other signers are blameless, but that guy just wouldn't take his DNF.

Very poor sportsmanship.

I'm with the weasellady on this one. Throw downs are simply for those who can't bear to post the reality, but not humility of a DNF.

Throwdowns shouldn't be confused with appropriate and authorized maintenance though.

If you know a cache owner, and want to confirm with them that the cache is in fact missing, and they authorize the placement of a new container, that's OK. Last week at a 1/1/5 I found the log sheets and stash note on the ground with no container in sight. I added a new container and baggie after signing the log and moved on. Yesterday someone beat me to the maintenance of one of my hides that had its lid mysteriously disappear. I was out caching and doing errands, and had planned to replace the container on my rounds. When I got there I saw a brand new container with the swag and log book stuffed inside my lidless container. I removed mine, and when I got home sent a note of thanks after reading about the deed in my email.

May 17, 2010

Once after finding a particularly clever cache I noticed that recent logs said it was an easy find but the log was too soaked to sign, which wasn't remotely true. I was curious so I looked again to see just what it was the others were finding - there was a throw-down film canister nearby with a soaked log. I dried it out - it had signatures dating back several years. From those signatures/dates I was able to match it up to a different cache. The log (and maybe the film can) originated in a cache that's more than an hour's drive away - a cache that's still active. (Yes, I told the involved COs about it.) I've no clue why it ended up here as a throw-down, but it was a fun mystery to solve.

I wouldn't delete any logs if I were you, but it would definitely cause a scowl to cross my face were it to happen to one of my caches.

10.2k · May 17, 2010

Happens all the time here in Kansas. We have a cacher that does it so often that it is named after him here. I usually take a little extra time if I know he has been there to look for another container. If I find two then I sign the log that does not have his name on it. I once found the real cache 12 inches away from the throwdown. It is rather annoying.

Does he know his username has become a verb?

It better be good, because I kind of like the term "throw down".

1.4k · May 17, 2010

I wouldn't hesitate to delete the log of the first person on the throwdown logsheet, but I would also probably delete the logs of the other people who signed the wrong one. The difference would be that I would send them and email first and let them know what happened and ask if they had a problem with the deletion. Visiting out of towners logs I would keep intact, as well as those who got back to me and asked that their logs be left alone. If I got contacted, I'd say go ahead and delete, I'll find the real thing. That first log would get iced with extreme prejudice though...

6.1k · May 17, 2010

The problem with deleting logs of the cachers that signed the throwdown is that it could mess up their stats. Their milestone 5000th find would be changed from an epic cache to a parking lot micro. What you could do is to archive your cache and list the throwdown cache for a bit until it needed maintenence. Then archive it, and unarchive your cache. The cachers who have their logs deleted could log the throwdown listing instead with the date that they found it. You could figure out which cachers found it by looking at your cache logs versus the online ones.

9.3k · May 17, 2010

I'm not anal about these things and intend to let things stand but just wanted your opinion

I think your response was perfect. Don't let the obliviots ruin your fun.

Another thread hijacked. Thanks Tequila and Bulldog.

Another thread showing evidence that some folks have had their sense of humor surgically removed. Thanx Bflentje.

3.8k · May 17, 2010

I'm not anal about these things and intend to let things stand but just wanted your opinion

I think your response was perfect. Don't let the obliviots ruin your fun.

Another thread hijacked. Thanks Tequila and Bulldog.

Another thread showing evidence that some folks have had their sense of humor surgically removed. Thanx Bflentje.

Another thread showing evidence that some folks would rather escalate a non-existent issue rather than just keep to themselves. THANX Clan Riffster.

May 17, 2010

We have kind of on-going similar thing going on with one of our caches. There is a letterbox just about 3-4 feet away hidden in the same area as our cache. Ours is the harder hide because it's smaller. Some cachers, though, typically newbies, have signed the letterbox instead of our cache. We've tried to be very descriptive in what it is they should be looking for (ours is a camoed pill bottle and the letterbox is a larger square tupperware box with a stamp in it..hard to confuse the two.. we mention both in our description) Nonetheless, every so often we'll get a log that mentions the larger box or say what an easy find it was and we know they've missed it. A good percentage of those have signed the letterbox have realized their mistake, probably when they're logging, and changed their log to a note or a DNF but some probably do not realize they've not actually found our cache. Short of going to the cache and checking the log for every cacher, (we did do that once) we decided there were only two things we could do. 1) move our cache, we think the letterbox may have there first -or- 2) don't worry about the small things. We opted for 2. It's a great area to cache in, people seem to like it. We've contacted the letterbox owner and he seems ok with it all. (It would be impossible to confuse our cache with a letterbox if that was what you were looking for) It's the journey, not the destination, right?

May 17, 2010

We've contacted the letterbox owner and he seems ok with it all. (It would be impossible to confuse our cache with a letterbox if that was what you were looking for) It's the journey, not the destination, right?

Perhaps you and the letterbox owner should join forces to co-own a single letterbox hybrid cache.

May 18, 2010

I'd delete all of their logs and add a note saying, "You can thank the J****** who dropped a throw down. Now go back out and sign the log. Thank you for your attention."

...or not.

Really, it's not the fault of the person who thought they were finding the right cache. Few caches are marked with cache name or waypoint. The Proximity Rule is to thank for that. So, few check the cache to see if it's the right cache and when there's been a throw-down few think to check. They'll even over look obvious differences in description and size.

No, who you ought to be peeved with is the cacher, and those like him who think it's okay, that dropped the throw down.

Honestly, I'd probably only delete the log of person to dropped the throw down. He's the one who didn't find anything.

I agree. I would post a note letting all cachers who found it under the rock know it wasn't the actual cache, but I would only delete the logg of the persons name on top (who presumably did the throwdown) as all others were kinda innocent in thier 'throw down find', but the first person was not and should not get a find.

9.3k · May 18, 2010

Don't let the obliviots ruin your fun.
THANX Clan Riffster.

Always happy to help out a fellow kettle

Can we get back on topic now? Thanx! :huh:

Has this ever happened to one of your caches?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Join the conversation