Jump to content

Cachers who don't sign the logs


Followers 4

Recommended Posts

We recently had a situation come up that we had never heard of, let alone thought might be acceptable. We had placed a cache, and it had been logged on the site as having been found once. When the second person found the cache, he mentioned that there was no signature on the log sheet in the cache.

 

For discussion purposes of this thread, let's forget the FTF issue. I know that Groundspeak does not get involved in that, and doesn't want to discuss it. Non-issue.

 

We, as relative newcomers to geocaching, have taken it for granted that signing the log sheet is part of the find. Heck, it's even in the little video they made to describe the game! However, I have had several back and forths with a reviewer who, if I am reading his responses correctly, make this out to be just a part of the game, and that I should just chill.

 

To back track a little, I should mention that my first email from the reviewer mentioned that this cacher had logged three other finds in the same area as our cache that same day (as if this somehow validated that he had actually been there.) Just out of curiosity, and because we are very close to the other two caches that were found by this cacher that day, we went to those caches and looked at their logs, and they were not signed by this cacher either. (And, yes, I wrote a very polite note to the cacher explaining that we didn't see his signature in the log, and could he please let us know, for the purposes of other cachers who were a little peeved by this, to let us know what happened. We have never received a response.)

 

When I brought this point up to the reviewer, his response was, "Is it OK to log online if you did not visit a cache? Probably not. Is it

something to fret over? No."

 

Probably not???! How about NOT! I just don't get this, and if I'm out in left field, I welcome a different viewpoint, but how in the world is it okay to sit at home and log finds on your computer without actually going out and finding them? And please... no comments about, well maybe he didn't have a pen with him, or you don't really know if that is what happened. THIS thread is about one question, and one question only. Is it okay for a cacher to claim a find without really finding it? A secondary question might be, is it okay for a cacher to go around making finds, and being too lazy to open the cache and sign the log? But that's really where the "chill" part comes in. I get that this is going to happen, we're dealing with the masses, etc., etc., and it's a waste of energy for me, personally, to "fret over."

 

But to not even find the cache?

 

Awhile ago, I asked a question about something I thought was equally unscrupulous, and the thread was bombarded with outraged responses. It was about COs who deliberately put out coordinates that are "off" to make the find more difficult. If all of you think that is unethical, how could it even be considered remotely okay for cachers to log finds without getting their butt out of their easy chair at home? I would really think that this crosses the line from just being unethical, to an outright violation of the guidelines/rules of the game.

 

Now I will sit back and see what everyone else thinks.

Link to comment

You are right, the cache log should be signed to claim a find.

 

Groundspeak leaves it up to cache owners to delete what the CO feels are bogus logs. Some owner's do some don't. I for one have had many caches out for over seven years, have never compared a cache log to an online log to see who did what, and never will. I put them out for cachers to enjoy them. What they do is up to them.

 

Your Reviewer is right, cache logs should be signed, but if you're going to get your panties in a wad because you can't control other people or legislate human behavior then you're really not going to enjoy this game much... or any other that I can think of.

 

Rambler's Mantra:

The best part of geocaching is that anyone can play.

The worst part of geocaching is...that anyone can play.

Link to comment
When I brought this point up to the reviewer, his response was, "Is it OK to log online if you did not visit a cache? Probably not. Is it something to fret over? No."

 

Well, your reviewer is right.

 

First off, it's not something to really bother a reviewer about. Reviewer do not police logs in this manner. They publish caches.

 

There are some times when it is OK to log online without signing the physical logbook, if the cache owner allows it. Some of those would be caches frozen and unaccessible, a damaged container, etc.

 

However, if there is no signature in the physical logbook, this is one time that a cache owner does not have to allow the online log to stand.

 

So, if you checked the logbook and found no signature, then feel free to delete the online log.

 

If the logger decides to appeal it, then it goes to Groundspeak, not the reviewer. Frankly, they have enough to deal with without getting in the middle of something like this.

Link to comment

I agree with the reviewer. The log book probably should be signed. But the bigger part I agree with is that it's not worth fretting about. If you don't want the online log to stand because they didn't sign the book then delete it.

 

You will never control what people do or why they do it. I've thought about it as I've been wading through permission seeking to place a cache and I can't ever see myself comparing the log book to the online logs to make sure everyone is legit as circumstances change and names change etc. I just have better things to do than to babysit people in a game.

Link to comment

You are right, the cache log should be signed to claim a find.

 

Groundspeak leaves it up to cache owners to delete what the CO feels are bogus logs. Some owner's do some don't. I for one have had many caches out for over seven years, have never compared a cache log to an online log to see who did what, and never will. I put them out for cachers to enjoy them. What they do is up to them.

 

Your Reviewer is right, cache logs should be signed, but if you're going to get your panties in a wad because you can't control other people or legislate human behavior then you're really not going to enjoy this game much... or any other that I can think of.

 

Rambler's Mantra:

The best part of geocaching is that anyone can play.

The worst part of geocaching is...that anyone can play.

 

Okay, I knew this was going to happen. Would everyone please read my entire post before responding? Secondly, maybe it's because I'm not feeling well this morning, and I'm a little cranky, but I personally think the expression, "getting your panties in a wad" is rude. I wonder what the male equivalent to that would be? Maybe "Get your jockstrap all tied up?"

 

Once again, the question of the day folks is not really about not signing the logs. It's about cachers who don't even go out and find the cache and then log a find.

 

Now, are you actually going to tell me that someone pointing out that this cheating is being, more or less, condoned is just fine and dandy?

 

This probably wasn't a good day for me to start this thread... :blink:

Link to comment

I'd delete the log, even more so because they are claiming FTF and that is even ruder than fake logging an old one. I don't have an issue with someone couldn't sign because they forgot thier pen or the log was wet or even if one of my caches ever turns out to be too high for someone to reach, but they found it. or whatever else is a good reason. But I do have an issue with those who "never sign logs" or always forget a pen. those I would delete if I came across them. Once I saw this guy logged 3 and didn't sign any of them I'd take a picture of the log and delete it. If he wants to come back later and sign the log he can log it then. Of course it's up to each CO to decide how they want to handle their cache. Thankfully you have the power to do what you want.

Link to comment

I don't spend much time worrying about it, but if I knew someone had logged a cache of mine online, without signing the log in the cache, I would delete their find.

 

There could be extenuating circumstances, but if so they should be able to provide some proof they were there.

Link to comment

I think the answer is pretty clear here. If they didnt sign the physical log, you can delete their online log. I think the only question is whether or not COs should care enough to delete them.

 

I dont think it would bother me too much, but I can see how it would bother you if the first name on the online log may in fact be fabricated.

 

At the end of the day, I'd take whatever action I felt was right, and then not worry about it. You have two choices, and neither one is really wrong.

Link to comment

You are right, the cache log should be signed to claim a find.

 

Groundspeak leaves it up to cache owners to delete what the CO feels are bogus logs. Some owner's do some don't. I for one have had many caches out for over seven years, have never compared a cache log to an online log to see who did what, and never will. I put them out for cachers to enjoy them. What they do is up to them.

 

Your Reviewer is right, cache logs should be signed, but if you're going to get your panties in a wad because you can't control other people or legislate human behavior then you're really not going to enjoy this game much... or any other that I can think of.

 

Rambler's Mantra:

The best part of geocaching is that anyone can play.

The worst part of geocaching is...that anyone can play.

 

Okay, I knew this was going to happen. Would everyone please read my entire post before responding? Secondly, maybe it's because I'm not feeling well this morning, and I'm a little cranky, but I personally think the expression, "getting your panties in a wad" is rude. I wonder what the male equivalent to that would be? Maybe "Get your jockstrap all tied up?"

 

Actually it's a gender-neutral web slang meaning "Don't get upset about the small things". This being an online forum I cannot see you and therefore had no way to know that you are female. How about I say it this way... Don't pet the sweaty things. :D

 

Once again, the question of the day folks is not really about not signing the logs. It's about cachers who don't even go out and find the cache and then log a find.

 

Now, are you actually going to tell me that someone pointing out that this cheating is being, more or less, condoned is just fine and dandy?

 

Yes, we're actually telling you that people have been cheating since the dawn of time at most any endeavor under the sun. So far it hasn't hurt our game, so most of us ignore them. I personally have zero desire to play cache cop.

 

This probably wasn't a good day for me to start this thread... :blink:

Me either. My mission here is to help folks, not insult them. Sometimes I'm not so good at the former and way too good at the latter. ;)

Edited by TheAlabamaRambler
Link to comment

How is it cheating? They simply didn't sign the log.

 

Sigh... :blink:

 

The issue is that a reviewer stated that is was "probably not" okay to log a find when the cacher didn't even find the cache. Does anyone agree that it is cheating for someone to just go on the computer and log finds without going out and finding the cache?

 

That is the question here folks! Please, can we put the log signing issues aside? (To myself... I knew I should have called this thread something else...)

 

("God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change...." ;))

Link to comment

How is it cheating? They simply didn't sign the log.

 

Sigh... :blink:

 

The issue is that a reviewer stated that is was "probably not" okay to log a find when the cacher didn't even find the cache. Does anyone agree that it is cheating for someone to just go on the computer and log finds without going out and finding the cache?

 

That is the question here folks! Please, can we put the log signing issues aside? (To myself... I knew I should have called this thread something else...)

 

("God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change...." ;))

Every one of us is agreeing with you.

 

Logging a cache that you have not found is cheating.

 

We are further responding to your OP with the commentary that it's probably not worth getting upset about.

 

We don't approve it, we don't condone it, we simply accept that it is going to happen.

 

If it happens to your cache delete the log.

 

If it happens to someone else's cache leave it to the CO to decide.

Link to comment

Some of these posts are getting the question of the day. Good for you to at least answer the question. :blink: The irony in all of this is that I'm not even perturbed about the practice! A better word would be incredulous that it would be condoned to claim a find without finding it!

 

This all started out to simply be a poll of level-headed opinions about how one views a cacher who would cheat, and that Groundspeak doesn't seem to have any specific guideline or rule in place that states that the cache must be found for it to be considered a "find."

 

There are specific guidelines for rating Difficulty and Terrain, about saturation, etc. Yet no guideline that simply says, "A person must physically find a cache, and sign the log as proof of the find before logging the find on the website."

 

Bigger deals are made on how close containers can be in multi's, getting permission from Forest Service land, etc. Isn't this worthy of a guideline?

 

That's all... just a poll.

Link to comment

Here's some more food for thought on this topic.

 

Right now, as this thread is taking place, there is another thread going on with many unhappy cachers because GS won't sanction an app for the Android phone.

 

Perfect example of my point.

 

Is it really more important for them to be spending time and sanctioning energy on how cachers are finding caches so they can go geocaching, than it is for them to look at situations where cachers are fraudulently logging caches that they didn't find?

 

When did the method of access to a game become more important than the game itself?

Link to comment

I would just delete his online log and move on. I think the reviewer is wrong, you don't get to log it unless you sign the physical log. Although I would not have taken it to the reviewer in the first place just delete.

 

Scubasonic

 

Scubasonic

 

It has been mentioned several times that this is not a question for a reviewer. Just out of curiosity, and bearing in mind that the Forums are strictly a compendium of opinions, who does one go to with GS when one has a controversial question that needs addressing?

Link to comment

I would just delete his online log and move on. I think the reviewer is wrong, you don't get to log it unless you sign the physical log. Although I would not have taken it to the reviewer in the first place just delete.

 

Scubasonic

 

Scubasonic

 

It has been mentioned several times that this is not a question for a reviewer. Just out of curiosity, and bearing in mind that the Forums are strictly a compendium of opinions, who does one go to with GS when one has a controversial question that needs addressing?

contact@Groundspeak.com is one place

Link to comment

I'm pretty sure I've had several people log some of my caches without ever having visited them. I haven't compared the physical logs to determine this, but knowing what other caches are in the same area and the area being off the beaten path, I'm fairly certain they never visited the caches they logged. Do I feel it is cheating to log those caches without having visited them? You beat your booty I think it is cheating! But, I believe they are cheating themselves more than they are cheating anyone else. Have I ever deleted logs I felt were visited only online? Nope. I won't waste my time, energy and money to check the logs to make sure everyone who has logged the cache online has also signed the physical log. Life is too short to worry about what and how other people play the game. BUT, if I just happen to visit one of my caches and find that someone has logged the cache online but not signed the physical log...it will be deleted and they can argue their case with GS.

Link to comment

I would just delete his online log and move on. I think the reviewer is wrong, you don't get to log it unless you sign the physical log. Although I would not have taken it to the reviewer in the first place just delete.

 

Scubasonic

 

Scubasonic

 

It has been mentioned several times that this is not a question for a reviewer. Just out of curiosity, and bearing in mind that the Forums are strictly a compendium of opinions, who does one go to with GS when one has a controversial question that needs addressing?

contact@Groundspeak.com is one place

 

Thanks! :blink:

Link to comment

Are there people who cheat and log bogus finds on cache they never even looked for? Probably. However they are very few and they either eventually tire and stop doing or they get caught and - yes - Groundspeak has banned accounts that to this.

 

Are there people who log finds online where they didn't sign the logbook because they forgot a pen, or the log wet, or they didn't want to draw attention to a cache in a high muggle area? Yeah there are a few people like this as well.

 

There are some people - I call them caching puritans - who insist that if you don't sign the physical log book you can't log a find online. This seems to me an extreme position. This is a simple fun activity that we participate in, and going nuts over someone who found the cache but for some reason was unable to sign the log is silly. Most cachers will allow a person to log a find on their cache unless they are reasonably sure that this person never found the cache and is just logging bogus logs.

 

Geocaching.com decided a long time ago that they were not going to be log police. Unless some is clearly abusing the website such as by sitting at home posting thousands of found logs for caches they obviously never visited, they are not going to take action. The volunteer reviewers are even in less a position to take action. Only Groundspeak can ban an account. Instead, Groundspeak has asked cache owners to be responsibly for the quality of posts on their cache pages. Cache owners are even told in the cache maintenance guidelines to delete logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off-topic, or not within stated requirements.

 

The OP appears to already know the answer she wants. If she read an understood the guidelines, she would know that if she thinks the logs are bogus she should delete them. There was no need to involve a reviewer, and unless the bogus logging continues, there is no point in getting Groundspeak involved. She seems to be more upset by the reviewer's comments that logging a find without signing the log is not big deal. This is where she shows some puritan tendencies. Since we don't have the actual text that went on between the OP and the reviewer, it's difficult to know if the reviewer said something wrong. My guess is that reviewer's emails were read selectively. from a puritan point of view, and that in fact that reviewer likely told the OP that she could delete the found logs herself and perhaps that neither Groundspeak or a volunteer reviewer was going to do that for her.

Link to comment

There are quite a few people who sign the log book in the cache, but never actually log the finds on the website. I have seen this quite a bit.

 

Personally, If some one is logging finds and not really looking, or finding them, they are only lying to them selves. There really is no point to it.

 

If I found some one log my find, and just happened to find that he did not sign one of my logs, I would simply delete his log and forget about it. I highly doubt he will log it again, unless he really did find it. But I would delete it again unless he signs the log in the cache.

 

The person who sits at home and just logs finds is just missing out and its sad. No reason to get upset about it.

 

If a FTF is the concerned, I would just delete the log of the person who did not sign the physical log, and make a note on the cache page that the person who actually signed the log is the FTF.

 

I would not worry about it there after.

Link to comment
Does anyone agree that it is cheating for someone to just go on the computer and log finds without going out and finding the cache?

 

I don't, personally. Cheating means that person gained an unfair advantage over me. If someone goes out and logs 42,000 armchair finds and becomes the statistical #1 cacher in the world, I'm not sure what advantage they've gained over anyone. If their idea of geocaching is sitting at a keyboard and phantom caching, good for them. No doubt they'll bore of that quickly enough and the rest of us can just keep on caching.

 

This all started out to simply be a poll of level-headed opinions about how one views a cacher who would cheat, and that Groundspeak doesn't seem to have any specific guideline or rule in place that states that the cache must be found for it to be considered a "find."

There are specific guidelines for rating Difficulty and Terrain, about saturation, etc. Yet no guideline that simply says, "A person must physically find a cache, and sign the log as proof of the find before logging the find on the website. "

 

It's true you can't stop someone from initially logging an armchair find on your cache but if you find they haven't signed the logbook, you, as the cache owner, have the right to delete the find. Groundspeak puts the onus of policing the logs squarely on the cache owner, where it belongs.

Link to comment

I wouldn't hesitate to delete the online log of someone who has not signed the physical log book. However, I always contact the cacher FIRST to give them a chance to explain. More often than not, they can explain exactly where they found the cache, and have a legit reason for not signing. I am nice about it, and give an opportunity for explanation. If they can't bother to respond, the log gets deleted.

I totally disagree with your reviewer.

There, I said it!

Link to comment

how could it even be considered remotely okay for cachers to log finds without getting their butt out of their easy chair at home? I would really think that this crosses the line from just being unethical, to an outright violation of the guidelines/rules of the game.

I agree. And I don't care. :blink:
Link to comment

No signee - no findee. We don't get upset when people cheat, we just delete the log. We don't bend over backwards to check for signatures, however, if we are suspicious, we will check it out. We found the last cache we looked for, but we did not have the equipment to retrieve it. We just posted a note (not a find) on line with the promise to come back when we had the right equipment. We own a cache ourselves that can be found, but may be difficult to retrieve. Without a signed physical log, you would never know if the cache was actually found or not. Don't let the cheaters upset you since it takes all kinds to make a world. Just take the appropriate actions. The most imprtant thing to do is just have a good time.

Link to comment

I think that armchair caching is pretty lame, but can it be controlled? Not really... I think that if you really catch someone doing it, then sure, delete their log; or don't. Who does it really hurt?

 

Geocaching is a game that you get out of it what you put in. Since the numbers really don't mean anything, the only person the armchair cacher really hurts is themselves because they miss out on the experience of finding the cache.

 

I think it's really hard to prove that they were actually armchair caching in some cases. Heck, some people sit at home and have their friends go out caching and sign their name on the log, so in that case, it's an armchair cacher whose name IS actually on the log, so in some cases you don't always know...

 

I can certainly understand that you are upset, and I admit that if someone did it to one of my caches I'd be bothered, and if I could prove without a doubt that they armchair cached, I would delete their online log, but I'd probably let it stand if there were any possibility that they actually found it.

Link to comment

i would delete any logs who don't correspond with a signed log sheet or a photo to prove they found it in my caches, if I had hidden any, which I haven't. To visit a cache without any proof is not playing the game.

Fixed it for ya. :blink:

 

i have three caches which are in review.

 

Thanks

Link to comment

i would delete any logs who don't correspond with a signed log sheet or a photo to prove they found it in my caches, if I had hidden any, which I haven't. To visit a cache without any proof is not playing the game.

Fixed it for ya. :blink:

 

i have three caches which are in review.

 

Thanks

 

Even if you hadn't hidden any, it seems like you've found enough to have an idea of what a good hide entails. Best of luck with your cache reviews ;)

Link to comment

i would delete any logs who don't correspond with a signed log sheet or a photo to prove they found it. To visit a cache without any proof is not playing the game.

 

Thank you. And you don't have to have hidden any caches to know the difference between right from wrong.

 

Yes, i DO have caches hidden and are in review. I, for one, decided to have at least 100 finds before hiding any caches to avoid making any rookie mistakes.

 

Thanks for not looking down your nose at me. Oh, wait ... too late.

Link to comment

i would delete any logs who don't correspond with a signed log sheet or a photo to prove they found it in my caches, if I had hidden any, which I haven't. To visit a cache without any proof is not playing the game.

Fixed it for ya. :blink:

 

i have three caches which are in review.

 

Thanks

 

Even if you hadn't hidden any, it seems like you've found enough to have an idea of what a good hide entails. Best of luck with your cache reviews ;)

 

My exact line of thinking. Hiding a cache after 10 or 20 finds would have ensured lame hides by my part.

Link to comment

If it were my cahce...

I might send them an email to ask why they didn't sign the log, depending on how much free time I had.

I might in this email ask them to please sign the logs of my caches that they find in the future.

I would have to be in a bad mood about not having anything else to do tho...

To me, it sounds like they went out caching and forgot their pen.

Link to comment

No signee - no findee. We don't get upset when people cheat, we just delete the log. We don't bend over backwards to check for signatures, however, if we are suspicious, we will check it out. We found the last cache we looked for, but we did not have the equipment to retrieve it. We just posted a note (not a find) on line with the promise to come back when we had the right equipment. We own a cache ourselves that can be found, but may be difficult to retrieve. Without a signed physical log, you would never know if the cache was actually found or not. Don't let the cheaters upset you since it takes all kinds to make a world. Just take the appropriate actions. The most important thing to do is just have a good time.

 

I see great wisdom in that post, mainly because I agree with it. :blink:

 

I am still new to this hobby but it seems to me that much of geocaching is set up around the honor system. Sure some people probably cheat and log thousands of caches online to satisfy whatever psychological disorder they have. But these are not people that you or I can fix. They do not, and probably can not understand what Aristotle meant when he said "Dignity consists not in possessing honors, but in the consciousness that we deserve them."

Link to comment

Two views of the question :

 

1. Joseph Armchair logs one to 20,000 caches from his computer and never left the house. Joe's smiley count is waaaaay up there and gets him . . . . what? Who cares.

 

2. GS becomes aware you have xx% bogus logs on your cache and archives it because your cache has Four Windows. You lose your cache!

 

Should you go out and check the physical log every 72 hours to reconcile it with online logs? Naaa, but if you somehow discover a 'bogus' online log - burn it, toss it in the round file, push the SMITE button (after emailing the suspect with a request for an explanation and not getting a satisfactory answer. of course.)

Link to comment

The problem as I see it is that the OP is interpreting the reviewers "probably not" as somehow condoning the practice because he did not say "absolutely not".

 

In reality, I can see the reviewer, receiving a log complaint that should probably have gone to the contact@ address and thinking to himself, it's just a log. Delete it and move on. Don't sweat it. It's not big deal.

 

So "probably not" should be read more like, "Dude/dudette, just delete the log and move on. It's not worth getting worked up over."

Link to comment

Some of these posts are getting the question of the day. Good for you to at least answer the question. :blink: The irony in all of this is that I'm not even perturbed about the practice! A better word would be incredulous that it would be condoned to claim a find without finding it!

 

This all started out to simply be a poll of level-headed opinions about how one views a cacher who would cheat, and that Groundspeak doesn't seem to have any specific guideline or rule in place that states that the cache must be found for it to be considered a "find."

 

There are specific guidelines for rating Difficulty and Terrain, about saturation, etc. Yet no guideline that simply says, "A person must physically find a cache, and sign the log as proof of the find before logging the find on the website."

 

Bigger deals are made on how close containers can be in multi's, getting permission from Forest Service land, etc. Isn't this worthy of a guideline?

 

That's all... just a poll.

 

I haven't seen anyone condoning the practice of logging a cache as a find on a cache they have not found and signed the log. I've seen lots of suggestions that if you discover that someone has logged a found it long on a cache on which they didn't sign the log, that is within your right to delete the log. In fact, the guidelines specifically stipulate that it is the cache owners responsibility to delete bogus logs as part of maintaining the cache. Groundspeak has even taken this a step further by asking reviewers to archive virtual caches which are not properly being maintained (mostly caches that allow other log log the cache without any sort of verification that they visited the cache). However, some cachers will allow people to log a find a cache when for one reason or another a finder of the cache couldn't sign the log. At the end of the day, it's between the person that (alledgedly) found the cache and the cache owner as to whats deemed acceptable proof that the cache was found.

 

What you're asking though is the opinion of those about cache which you do not own, and again, I think the consensus is that it is not something that they would condone but most of the responses suggest that the issue is between the cache owner and the person posting the bogus logs. Yes, it may be annoying to see someone posting bogus logs on caches that they haven't found but it's still up to the CO owner as to whether any action should be taken.

 

Some of the responses have agreed that the practice of logging caches that you haven't actually found *is* cheating but it's more like cheating at solitaire than it is cheating on a spouse. Cheating at solitaire or how they're playing the geocaching game is only cheating themselves. It doesn't hurt other cachers in anyway. It doesn't change your find count. It shouldn't change how much enjoyment you get finding the same cache or others. If someone that was logging bogus finds on caches came here gloating about how many caches they have found and it was discovered that they really didn't find those caches you can bet that there would be a lot of responses less than complimentary.

 

If it seems that many of the responses don't seem to be expressing the amount of concern that you have about the practice it just may be that most of them are coming from people that have been playing the game a long time and have seen it all before and come to realize that, as in any game, some people just lack integrity for how it's played, but won't let it impact the enjoyment they get out it personally.

Link to comment

 

Are there people who log finds online where they didn't sign the logbook because they forgot a pen, or the log wet, or they didn't want to draw attention to a cache in a high muggle area? Yeah there are a few people like this as well.

 

Personally, I don't have a problem with this at all. If you're caught without a pen, or tweezers, just note it in the log that you didn't sign because....

 

There are some people - I call them caching puritans - who insist that if you don't sign the physical log book you can't log a find online. This seems to me an extreme position. This is a simple fun activity that we participate in, and going nuts over someone who found the cache but for some reason was unable to sign the log is silly.

 

Actually, I just read a log recently where a cacher wrote that they "don't sign nanos or micros." Hmmmm.. unable or just lazy. But at least they noted it, and gave an explanation. Regardless, a minor point, and not something to even bring up here. Again, that's was not the point of the thread.

 

The OP appears to already know the answer she wants. If she read an understood the guidelines,

 

Perhaps that is something that would be helpful, rather than judgmental... help me by telling me how to get to these guidelines. As you can see we're not that experienced, and still learning. We have read a lot, but can always use more help.

 

...she would know that if she thinks the logs are bogus she should delete them. There was no need to involve a reviewer,

 

I did not know that. Again, part of the learning curve.

 

She seems to be more upset by the reviewer's comments that logging a find without signing the log is not big deal.

 

Again, wrong! Not signing a log in a cache that was truly found is not the end of the world IMHO, and I think I have said that on here many times. (Refer back to original post.)

 

This is where she shows some puritan tendencies.

 

Reading your Profile page, you seem to have some bias against people who actually like to be honest. Otherwise, if this is all for fun, why take something that can be gray, and call it balck or white? Puritan, in the way you are using it here and on your profile, almost sounds like a disorder!

Since we don't have the actual text that went on between the OP and the reviewer, it's difficult to know if the reviewer said something wrong. My guess is that reviewer's emails were read selectively. from a puritan point of view,

 

There's that word, "puritan" again!" As you said, this is your "guess." Will give cachers who don't log finds a break, but won't give someone who is trying very hard to do the right thing a break? I wonder which of these two people you would seriously think is more honest? The quote is direct from the communication, and the brunt of the entire gist of the note. But then, I don't think you are going to believe anything I write at this point because, you have already made up your mind!

 

...and that in fact that reviewer likely told the OP that she could delete the found logs herself and perhaps that neither Groundspeak or a volunteer reviewer was going to do that for her.

 

Yes, reviewer told me I could delete log if I wanted to. No, he did not allude to, nor did I ask, for him to do it for me. I'm not that new at this as to expect them to manage my cache logs!

 

Thanks for the very helpful reply... not!

Link to comment

The problem as I see it is that the OP is interpreting the reviewers "probably not" as somehow condoning the practice because he did not say "absolutely not".

 

In reality, I can see the reviewer, receiving a log complaint that should probably have gone to the contact@ address and thinking to himself, it's just a log. Delete it and move on. Don't sweat it. It's not big deal.

 

So "probably not" should be read more like, "Dude/dudette, just delete the log and move on. It's not worth getting worked up over."

 

Finally, someone has hit the nail on the head! Although, I think the word "interpreting" is a bit of a stretch. It seems to me that this practice calls for an "absolutely not," but that's just my opinion.

 

Thanks for your two cents. :blink:

Link to comment

i would delete any logs who don't correspond with a signed log sheet or a photo to prove they found it. To visit a cache without any proof is not playing the game.

 

Thank you. And you don't have to have hidden any caches to know the difference between right from wrong.

 

Yes, i DO have caches hidden and are in review. I, for one, decided to have at least 100 finds before hiding any caches to avoid making any rookie mistakes.

 

Thanks for not looking down your nose at me. Oh, wait ... too late.

 

My goodness! I think you have completely misunderstood my response! It came on the heels of someone suggesting that you shouldn't have a say in this thread because you currently don't have a caches showing as hidden. I think that is outrageous! I was defending the value of your opinion on here! How in the world did you get that I was looking down my nose at you? Not at all! I was doing just the opposite! Good luck with your new caches! :blink:

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...
Followers 4
×
×
  • Create New...