No logbook signed

[+Merlyn of Camelot]

A newby cacher is logging a find on website, but is not signing logbook. Did they really find it?

[+Chokecherry]

You'll never really know. However, one thing that one of the more veteran cachers did here when I found one of his caches as my first was one was instantly e-mail me and remind me to sign the log books. If the newbie isn't signing maybe just an e-mail to make sure they're doing ok and remembering to sign would be nice.

[+FreeBird65]

not in my eyes...

[+dorqie]

You'll have to ask them.

There was a thread on here earlier in wich a newbie was asking why the logbook must be signed.

It's possible that they don't know they are required to sign it, or that they simply forgot their pen.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Sign log. Log on-line. Get smiley. Seems fairly simple. COs can make exceptions. It certainly wouldn't hurt to remind the newbies that it is expected.

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

I think in order to keep the activity as right and correct as can be, a nicely and gently worded email would do.

I got one when we started, and I appreciated it (regarding a cache re-visit).

 

If it involves your cache(s), you can simply delete the log(s) and make him learn the hard way, if you want. It would be a harsh beginning, but he certainly would remember!

[+Hrethgir]

I recently logged a find that I didn't sign the logbook for. I was out on a motorcycle ride a long ways from home, and my buddy, who I didn't even know cared about caching (he knew of it, but didn't know he played) pulled out his phone and said "I wonder if there's a cache nearby?" Well, I whipped out my phone and fired up the GC app, and we went to find the cache. Then after we found it, we realized neither of us had a pen on us or on our bikes. I said as much in the online find log, and said I would totally understand if he deleted the find because I didn't sign the logbook, and offered to send the owner a geolocated pic of the cache, but he said he'll take my word for it and is letting me keep the find. I TRIED to sign it with a thin stick and damp dirt, but it was such a small logbook that all I ended up doing was making a little brown smudge on it! If I'm ever around there again, I stop and actually sign it, but it's over 100 miles from home.

Edited May 20, 2010 by Hrethgir

[+briansnat]

If a person forgets to sign one or twice, I'd let it slide. If he rarely or never signs it tells me that he is likely a phony and I will delte his logs.

[+BlueDeuce]

I recently logged a find that I didn't sign the logbook for. I was out on a motorcycle ride a long ways from home, and my buddy, who I didn't even know cared about caching (he knew of it, but didn't know he played) pulled out his phone and said "I wonder if there's a cache nearby?" Well, I whipped out my phone and fired up the GC app, and we went to find the cache. Then after we found it, we realized neither of us had a pen on us or on our bikes. I said as much in the online find log, and said I would totally understand if he deleted the find because I didn't sign the logbook, and offered to send the owner a geolocated pic of the cache, but he said he'll take my word for it and is letting me keep the find. I TRIED to sign it with a thin stick and damp dirt, but it was such a small logbook that all I ended up doing was making a little brown smudge on it! If I'm ever around there again, I stop and actually sign it, but it's over 100 miles from home.

 

The fact that you contacted the owner and explained the situation would be good enough for me as well. In fact it's appreciated.

 

As for the OP's situation I might send them a note asking is they had a chance to sign the logbook and see if I get a response but otherwise I would do as briansnat does and watch for a pattern.

Edited May 21, 2010 by BlueDeuce

[+brslk]

I recently hid my first cache. The first person to log it online did not sign the log book. I didn't know this until a well respected local cacher said in his online log how it was odd that the log book was blank when he found it a day later. I emailed the first cacher and his response was "I was on a numbers run and didn't have time to sign it".

I deleted his log.

I have seen a few more times since then that the same cacher has posted "on a numbers run, no time to sign log".

I debated with my self at first about deleting his log but not after reading more of his online logs.

 

For the most part I would let it slide... unless it was as obvious as in my experience.

 

My only worry would be that the person you delete may try to get revenge somehow.

[knowschad]

I recently hid my first cache. The first person to log it online did not sign the log book. I didn't know this until a well respected local cacher said in his online log how it was odd that the log book was blank when he found it a day later. I emailed the first cacher and his response was "I was on a numbers run and didn't have time to sign it".

I deleted his log.

I would have done the same. That is bull! Any way you look at it, it's bull. Either he really was on a numbers run and was too busy to sign the log, or he was totally lying about ever finding the cache, it's bull. Edited May 21, 2010 by knowschad

[+PinkFox5]

I was worried about this myself. I took my son out for a quick cache for his birthday and realized when I got there, that my pen didn't have any ink in it. I still signed it and made sure my name was legible.

[+Fiver1]

As far as I'm concerned signing the log is an integral part of geocaching. This is if it's possible. I did a series a while back where several of the caches were floating in a ditch with about 4 ft. of water around them. This was not intended by the CO but we had an exceptional amount of rain at this time. I made note of this in my logs and was allowed to log my finds. This, however, is the exception to the rule and I always sign the log on a find. To me, this is what geocaching is all about.

[+nekom]

My personal opinion is no signed log = no find. If I find a cache and the log is unsignable, I log a needs maintenance, not a find. Of course leaving a replacement logbook and signing that would count in my mind.

 

On the other hand, I don't get hung up on what others do either. The only time I check out the log book in my hides is when I archive them. Strangely enough, the last cache I archived had just the opposite: 2 cachers who had signed the log book but NOT logged a find on gc.com

[Trader Rick & Rosie]

The log must be signed or it's not a find. What we have done when in the woods, is to break sticks until we get one that has a sharp edge, then use it to make a small cut on our palm and sign in blood with it. If it's a nano under a lamp p ost skirt, who cares?

[+Chrysalides]

The log must be signed or it's not a find. What we have done when in the woods, is to break sticks until we get one that has a sharp edge, then use it to make a small cut on our palm and sign in blood with it. If it's a nano under a lamp p ost skirt, who cares?

Do you mean, why bother logging a find online for a nano under a lamp post, why bother even looking for it at all, or it is somehow exempt from your "it must be signed or it's not a find" rule?

 

Edit to add : in the woods, mud would work as well. Or plant sap.

Edited May 21, 2010 by Chrysalides

[+thistleRacers]

Can't sign soggy log book. I have two where we didn't sign because of water-logged logs....with one the CO changed it the next day after I reported it, the other cachers have been reporting it for 7 months and CO is unresponsive.

 

If CO replaces log should I go sign it if it is nearby? (wouldn't be possible if some one was travelling though...)

[+Team Cotati]

A newby cacher is logging a find on website, but is not signing logbook. Did they really find it?

 

If the logbook is physically capable of being signed and is not signed, no.

 

Otherwise, yes.

[daveindeal]

im am here purly for the fun and not the number's

 

if i reach a cache i sign the log, in the rare case that my pen dont work or its too wet to sign, i take a photo of the cache container and a landmrk in the area that the CO cannot refuse to accept as i was there and had the cache in hand.

 

but as for my caches (14 hidden and 3 archived) , i have never checked the logs,

 

If you have faked the find, good for you hope you happy and brag about the amount of smileys you have.

 

If you found it and didnt sign, hope you enjoyed the hunt and for taking the time to let the rest of us know its there safe and sound.

[+9Key]

I think this was created by Markwell but I could be wrong:

[+baloo&bd]

im am here purly for the fun and not the number's

 

if i reach a cache i sign the log, in the rare case that my pen dont work or its too wet to sign, i take a photo of the cache container and a landmrk in the area that the CO cannot refuse to accept as i was there and had the cache in hand.

 

If it is not about the numbers, why go to the trouble of taking a picture (which does not insure the log will not be deleted) so you can log it on a site where the stated etiquette is to sign the log?

 

Just move on. You had your experience but did not meet the criteria for logging online.

Edited May 21, 2010 by baloo&bd

[+dorqie]

I am also not so stirct in my thinking about it.

To me, if they really did fake a find, they aren't hurting anyone but themselves, and one wonders why they bother, I mean what's the fun in simply surfing a website and logging things you never looked for?

Of course I take another issue if it was a "TFTC" type log on a cahce that is suspected to be missing, or needs tlc because that would throw other cachers off and lull them into thinking the cache is ok. (if that makes sesnse to anyone but me)

I don't agree with logging false finds, but I'm not up in arms about it.

 

and also, signing a log with blood is pretty gross, and something of a health hazzard.

[+BulldogBlitz]

i consider signing the log to be an ALR... so i refuse to sign any log... and threaten the COs if they attempt to delete me with reporting them to the all-mighty.

 

[+Chrysalides]

I think this was created by Markwell but I could be wrong:

Awesome!

 

Where does "not logging a find online after signing logbook" fit in?

 

*** Disclaimer : I don't particularly care if you don't log online, though I think feedback to the CO is nice - either as a note, or log then delete.

[+tozainamboku]

The people who insist there is a rule some place that you mustn't post an online Found log unless you have signed the log find various places on geocaching.com to prove this point. One favorite is this list from the Getting Started section:

 

Easy Steps to Geocaching

 

1. Register for a free Basic Membership.

2. Click "Hide & Seek a Cache."

3. Enter your postal code and click "search."

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

5. Enter the coordinates of the geocache into your GPS Device.

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

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

8. Share your geocaching stories and photos online.

 

If number 7 is an absolute requirement, then why not number 6. People who find geocaches without using a GPS are cheaters. And certainly number 8 is a requirement. If you don't log online (and even if you do but can only bother to type TFTC) you're not following the "rules"

 

There is an association with logging an online Found log and signing the cache, unfortunately. This was not the case until the infamous decision to no longer allow cache owners to delete "Found" logs of cachers who didn't perform some Additional Logging Requirement (ALR). At that time the guildelines were changed to say "Geocaches can be logged online as Found once the physical log has been signed." Prior to this there was no official connection at all between signing logs and logging an online find.

 

Of course, cache owners were told that it was their responsibility to maintain quality control of posts to the cache page. If an online log appears to be bogus, the cache owner is supposed to delete it. The accepted practice in the community was to accept the signed log as proof that the cache was found and not delete logs so long as the log was signed. A few cache owners check the physical log and assume if the log was not signed that the cache was not found. The vast majority of cache owners will not delete logs unless the log is suspicious as well. One can generally tell if someone is a bogus logger; these people log many caches at at time usually using cut and paste logs and none of the caches they claim to have find will have their name in the physical log. If someone is obviously sitting at home logging "finds" online thay are not caching. The logs are bogus and should be deleted. A cacher who forgets a pen, or finds a log to wet to write on, or even one that simply forgot to sign the log at one cache, shouldn't be treated as a bogus logger. A person who was a muggle and found cache they didn't sign, but later found out on the website about caches and creates an account to tell about how they found this cache shouldn't be treated as a bogus logger. A group of geocachers caching together, where one cacher signs the log for all the group, shouldn't be treated as a bogus logger.

[Skippermark]

If someone is new and finds one of my caches and didn't sign the log, I'm not going to drill them and ask for proof that they visited it. They're new and may not know exactly what caching is about. Heck, some first timers think they have to take the cache with them.

 

What I would do is send them an email welcoming them to geocaching and thanking them for finding my cache. I'd also let them know that should sign the log if they want to log it online because owners may delete their find online if their name isn't in the log.

 

I've gotten replies back from people saying they didn't know they needed to sign in...should they go back or remove their log online and things like that.

 

As for signing with blood. Ewww.

[+redsox_mark]

I was caching yesterday and my pen stopped writing (usually have a spare, but not today). Most caches had a pen/pencil in them so no problem. One hard to find nano did not. I signed the log with the bad pen - it made an indentation, just no ink. I explained this in my log. It's not so much a numbers thing as an accurate record of what I did, and to me I found it and signed. The fact that signature is hard to read is unfortunate, but I don't think will turn me to the dark side. But if the CO wants to delete my find, so be it.