Logging "Find" and did not sign log

[+sbell111]

http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines...gingofallcaches

 

"Logging of All Physical Caches

 

Geocaches can be logged online as Found once the physical log has been signed."

 

 

Quit playing around. Does it really say that?

Sure. What it doesn't say is: "Geocaches can only be logged online as Found if the physical log has been signed."

[+sbell111]

If a cache owner can delete any on line log because the finder did not sign the log in the cache, then signing the log is required for those caches.

Since it appeared that you failed to finish your thought, I figured that I would help you out and add the bolded verbiage. Edited July 6, 2010 by sbell111

[+sbell111]

http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines...gingofallcaches

 

"Logging of All Physical Caches

 

Geocaches can be logged online as Found once the physical log has been signed."

I was not around when this was placed in the guidelines but some say it was placed solely in reference to the new ALR guideline. Some even reference quotes from lackeys who have confirmed this to be the case. That may be the case but let's look at this from the average, non forum reading cacher who does not have a degree in English and reads things as they see them. This guideline is titled "Logging of All Physical Caches" and states that "geocaches can be logged online as found once the physical log has been signed" The ALR guideline comes AFTER this statement. If the first statment is in direct reference to ALR's then the title of this guidlines should have been "Logging ALR's". To people who have never dealt with ALR's it seems cut and dry. This is how I see it. But if a cacher logs saying that they couldn't sign because the log was wet, container was there but log missing, container was frozen in place, etc. I would accept these as legitimate finds. But this is just my humble opinion.

Except the entire page is for hiders not finders. A newbie looking for the rules on logging wouldn't look at that page.

This may be true but hiders are getting labeled as puritans for following this guideline. As for finders, aside from the sound logic tozainamboku uses to point out that the 8 steps on the getting started page are not proof that you must sign the log, I again go to the average everyday cacher who would look to this "getting started page" or the knowledge base page and say that this is a requirement.

That guideline only states that if a logbook is signed, then an online log can be made. It makes no statement regarding whether the online log can be made if the physical logbook is not signed. It leaves this determination to the cache owner. Given this, who is being labelled a puritan simply because they are allowing online logs when the physical log books have been signed?

[+N7MFT]

If the cache needs maintenance then I am OK with cachers not signing the log. However, if the cache has plenty of room, or there is room to stick a piece of paper in the log then my caches must be signed. I only have one cache and it is in a parking lot next to a store. How hard it is to take the log in and ask to borrow a pen?, for for that matter purchase one. I always sign the logs of the caches I find. I have replaced logs that were damp, or full and then signed them. The exception is an unusual cache with a log that at that time I did not carry with me. (Not sure if I will in the future either.) This being said cache owners need to do maintenance on their caches, and cachers need to report using the needs maintenance log. Since I only have the 1 cache it is pretty easy for me to keep up on the maintenance but I can see how a person with many caches could have trouble keeping up with the maintenance if people are not using the needs maintenance log.

 

I recently have had my first log on my cache with a could not sign the log because I did not have a pen. I am thinking of asking the cacher to go back and sign the log and edit the online log to reflect that she signed it. She is local, so it should not be an issue but I will not hesitate to delete the online log if the physical is not signed in a reasonable amount of time.

[+Castle Mischief]

There are cache owners that represent almost all points along the spectrum of the rainbow known as "Justification for Selection of the "Found It" Log Type Whilst Logging via the Website the Geocache that I Could or Couldn't Not Place My Grubby Fingers on the Log Book."

 

- Decide what the guidelines mean to you. Think ahead to what might happen should a cache hunter not meat your requirements. Either allow you viewpoint to evolve or stick to your guns budge not an inch.

 

- Either way, be prepared to deal with the consequences. If you deny the golden "Found It" you may incur some level of drama. Groundspeak may or may not support your deletion and may or may not restore (and lock, preventing further deletion) the "Found It" log on your cache page.

 

- Consider how that might make you feel ahead of time. Perhaps prepare a lengthy forum post (see also "geocide") in the form of an angry rant. Consider what may result from such a tirade on the forums.

 

 

It's all about thinking ahead and considering the results of your actions. At the end of the day, will your efforts be rewarding to you and will you feel that the end results justify the means?

[+slukster]

This may be true but hiders are getting labeled as puritans for following this guideline. As for finders, aside from the sound logic tozainamboku uses to point out that the 8 steps on the getting started page are not proof that you must sign the log, I again go to the average everyday cacher who would look to this "getting started page" or the knowledge base page and say that this is a requirement.

 

That guideline only states that if a logbook is signed, then an online log can be made. It makes no statement regarding whether the online log can be made if the physical logbook is not signed. It leaves this determination to the cache owner. Given this, who is being labelled a puritan simply because they are allowing online logs when the physical log books have been signed?

 

From the following topic Cacher's who don't sign the logs...

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.

 

People are being labeled puritans because they are deleting logs because, in my opinion, they are following this guideline. That was my point.

[+tozainamboku]

People are being labeled puritans because they are deleting logs because, in my opinion, they are following this guideline. That was my point.

And my point was that there is no guideline requiring a cache owner to delete an online find log if the physical log is not signed. The only guideline is that a finder may go ahead and log a find online once they have signed a the physical logbook [regardless of any additional logging requirements the cache owner has placed].

 

The best you can say is that this allows a cache owner to delete an online found log it the log is not signed. But I contend that a cache owner can delete an online found log if the log is bogus, counterfeit, off-topic, or not within the stated requirements. Before the changes, I took stated requriements to mean any ALRs the cache owner placed on the cache. I don't know what it means now. Perhaps if someone could show me the stated requirement that the physical log must be signed, I would stop labeling people as puritans. I don't believe anyone will find such a requirement except in their own imagination.

 

However, if a cache owner believes a log is bogus, a signed log has been deemed sufficient proof that the log is legitimate. (You can't easily prove whether this is the geocacher's signature or if they had someone else sign the log; so even a bogus log might stand if the signature is in the physical log). If a cache owner has reason to believe that an online log is bogus and there is no signature in the physical log, then they are following the guidelines by deleting the log. I am not labeling anyone who deletes bogus logs as the guideline instruct one to.

[+Waazdag]

Personally, if I do not find it and retrieve/sign the log, I don't mark it as "found". I'll post a DNF or a note if something interfered, and once had a CO tell me to log it as a "FIND" afterwards since I spotted the cache in a tree (hanging cache with pulleys to retrieve) but retrieving it would have put it as risk due to nearby muggles on a balcony that would have been able to see the cache (any myself) after it broke free of the tree cover... I logged it as a DNF and would be back one day (800+ miles from home), but the CO told me to take it as a find... so I did... but would never be so pretentious as to just take that as a "FOUND" without the CO's permission...

 

I know a lot of people not only do not sign the log, but a LOT are claiming they find it & sign it when they never even found it. I hunted (repeatedly) a nano in a park parking lot that had several DNF's... took me 4 trips and the CO updating the correct coordinates before I finally nailed it. By the time I arrived some 27-28ish people (I think) had claimed it as "Found/ SL", but mine was only the 8th signature on the original log book... and it wasn't even a super nano cache that was tough to roll up: it was a mid sized bison tube with an easy to roll log...

 

But to each their own in this game... heck, I'd probably over 1000 finds if I played like that... got here, looked, will claim it as a find regardless of whether I found it or not...

[knowschad]

http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines...gingofallcaches

 

"Logging of All Physical Caches

 

Geocaches can be logged online as Found once the physical log has been signed."

 

If Groundspeak wanted this guideline to have actual teeth, they could have implemented a verification system for caches, much like tracking numbers for travel bugs/geocoins. When a cache is submitted, the owner is given a code that they put inside the cache container and when a cacher goes to log the find, they would have to fill in the correct verification code before the log would be valid.

Pssttt.... hey, buddy... PM me if you're interested in trading geocache verification numbers.

[+narcissa]

Pssttt.... hey, buddy... PM me if you're interested in trading geocache verification numbers.

 

[AZcachemeister]

So, after weeding out the useless, juvenile, "waste of my time" posts, I have deduced that signing the log is a "rule" and requirement only if I, as the CO, wish to make it a requirement. And to do so, I will put the requirement in cache description. And personally, I will continue to hike a mile back to my cache-mobile to get a writing stick if I don't have one with me. For me, it's part of the "FUN!", to follow the rules and complete the challenge completely. Personal Responsibility.

 

Signing the log is the basic premise of geocaching, and there are very few excuses for not doing so.

'Stupid and unprepared' is not one of them.

Even so, I rarely delete unverifiable find logs online.

[+thedeadpirate]

I'm gonna probably start a stink and I really should just stick with my Ni! and let it go. But here goes.

 

Finders can pretty much do whatever they want. There is absolutely no way, aside from staking out your caches, that anyone can police finders.

 

The guidelines are primarily geared towards hiders. Hiders are the only ones Groundspeak has any chance of policing. Even then they can really only look for guideline violations prior to publishing a cache. They don't go out and inspect each individual cache to ensure it adheres to the guidelines.

 

Basically what this boils down to is that everyone is on the honor system. We put caches out and we trust that those logging finds are doing so honorably.

 

But then there is the question of what is honorable? Well, as it turns out, honorable is whatever each cacher defines it as for him/herself. Groundspeak has removed the ability to require certain forms of authentication such as a picture of you holding the cache. ALR's are out.

 

The only basis for log deletion that is still universally allowed is the lack of a signature in the physical logbook and spoilers. A spoiler log will not stand indefinitely though. You can re-log without the spoiler. Therefore, the only real reason that TPTB will absolutely support a CO on is the lack of a signature in the logbook.

 

But, as Toz has pointed out, it still is not a requirement to sign the logbook before logging online.

 

A finder can log any cache they want to regardless of whether or not they signed the logbook. There is nothing in the software that prevents it. It is the Honor System. I can log 100 caches from my chair tonight. Until a CO goes out and verifies those finds, there's nothing he can do. If he deletes my log, I can log it again, and again, and again until one of us gives up or appeals to Groundspeak. Then he has to go out to his cache and verify that log if he wants to say I didn't find it.

 

It that time frame I can simply go out and steal the logbook and/or the entire cache. I can cause a lot of havoc.

 

You know why? Because we depend on the goodness and grace of our fellow cachers in order to continue playing this game we've all come to love.

 

What is my point? I don't think I really have one other than it is an exercise in futility to keep throwing the "rules" back and forth at each other. What it boils down to is either people will respect their fellow cachers or this game will not survive.

[+42at42]

If you can't retrieve the logbook because you need tweezers, is that a "find"?

 

In this scenario, I refuse to remove log sheets I don't think I will be able to put back in properly. I am talking about those pesky nano's. I don't want to wreck the cache.

 

If a log owner wants to delete my find in this case, I will go out attempt to remove, sign and replace the log. If unsuccessful I will relog my find. I signed the log. If I cannot replace the log properly I will also post a Needs Maintenance log.

 

I certainly hope most "Nano hiders" would rather have the log in place than have to go out and fix their cache.

 

My suggestion is that you invest $1 in a TOTT -- a log rolling tool. Easily found on ebay.

 

Cool tool, about $4.oo with shipping. I may check it out.

[+Crow-T-Robot]

Pssttt.... hey, buddy... PM me if you're interested in trading geocache verification numbers.

 

Pssst...no, I'm not interested. Ask the cache owner if he'll do you a solid.

 

I know you can't do much against the PAF network or behind the scenes deals, but you could at least make it harder for an armchair logger to rack up the finds.

[+sbell111]

This may be true but hiders are getting labeled as puritans for following this guideline. As for finders, aside from the sound logic tozainamboku uses to point out that the 8 steps on the getting started page are not proof that you must sign the log, I again go to the average everyday cacher who would look to this "getting started page" or the knowledge base page and say that this is a requirement.

 

That guideline only states that if a logbook is signed, then an online log can be made. It makes no statement regarding whether the online log can be made if the physical logbook is not signed. It leaves this determination to the cache owner. Given this, who is being labelled a puritan simply because they are allowing online logs when the physical log books have been signed?

 

From the following topic Cacher's who don't sign the logs...

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.

 

People are being labeled puritans because they are deleting logs because, in my opinion, they are following this guideline. That was my point.

Again, that guideline doesn't say what you think it does.

[+sbell111]

So, after weeding out the useless, juvenile, "waste of my time" posts, I have deduced that signing the log is a "rule" and requirement only if I, as the CO, wish to make it a requirement. And to do so, I will put the requirement in cache description. And personally, I will continue to hike a mile back to my cache-mobile to get a writing stick if I don't have one with me. For me, it's part of the "FUN!", to follow the rules and complete the challenge completely. Personal Responsibility.

 

Signing the log is the basic premise of geocaching, and there are very few excuses for not doing so.

'Stupid and unprepared' is not one of them.

Even so, I rarely delete unverifiable find logs online.

The basic premise of geocaching is to go out and find something that was hidden by someone else using an electronic gizmo, then document the find online.

 

Signing the physical logbook is a side issue and certainly not the 'basic premise' of the game.

[+jellis]

"found cache, forgot pen, could not sign log." I use my camera or camera phone a take a pic. Or use something nearby like a twig.

but can't quite reach it, is that a "find"? Nope I could see if someone else got it down for you but the high rating means if you can't reach it you can't sign it and can't log it.

If it's a submerged cache, but it's too cold and you don't want to get wet, but you see it down in the water, is that a "Find"? Nope, No different when a well known cacher was caught logging cache finds in a park just because the gate was closed.

If you set out for a cache, but run out if gas before you get there, is that a "find" cause you meant to get it, and would have got it if you hadn't run out of gas? Thats too funny

[+redsox_mark]

"found cache, forgot pen, could not sign log." I use my camera or camera phone a take a pic.

 

 

That is what I did the one time I didn't have a pen (took a photo). But this would not be acceptable to some (e.g.. "Sign THE log or don't claim a find."). I had the log in my hand, I provided evidence, but I did not sign the log.

 

Looking back to the original post: What I find surprising is the observation that not signing the log is common. Regardless of how strict an interpretation of the guidelines you take, my experience is most people understand signing the log is part of the game, and it is only in rare cases where someone claims a find without signing the log.

 

I think most of us agree you generally should sign the log. The debate is there are different answers to the question "is it EVER acceptable to claim a find without signing the physical log". I think it can be acceptable, e.g. in the wasp attack case. And those who think it is acceptable will draw the line in different places.

 

I suppose it is cleaner to have the "puritan" view - no sign, no smiley - as then there is no further debate needed about what is acceptable and what is not. But I still prefer a flexible approach where circumstances are taken into account.

[+Castle Mischief]

So, after weeding out the useless, juvenile, "waste of my time" posts, I have deduced that signing the log is a "rule" and requirement only if I, as the CO, wish to make it a requirement. And to do so, I will put the requirement in cache description. And personally, I will continue to hike a mile back to my cache-mobile to get a writing stick if I don't have one with me. For me, it's part of the "FUN!", to follow the rules and complete the challenge completely. Personal Responsibility.

 

Signing the log is the basic premise of geocaching, and there are very few excuses for not doing so.

'Stupid and unprepared' is not one of them.

Even so, I rarely delete unverifiable find logs online.

The basic premise of geocaching is to go out and find something that was hidden by someone else using an electronic gizmo, then document the find online.

 

Signing the physical logbook is a side issue and certainly not the 'basic premise' of the game.

 

So, anybody playing the game with that basic premise in mind would be... wrong?

[+needaxeo]

 

 

"the dog ate my homework".

 

 

Brilliant post. Nobody with an ounce of sense will attempt to attack it. However, I REALLY wish people would quit using this annoying phrase. In order for comedy to work, it has to have an element of truth. There is NO evidence of a healthy grey wolf ever making an unprovoked attack on humans in North America. Ever!

 

As long as I'm up on my soapbox, what's this snarky reference to "beasts in the forest"? huh??

 

Perhaps, but "being made of meat" is enough provocation for an animal that's hungry

But "evidence of provoked attack" doesn't sound like something you'll find outside of a disney film where the wolf is depicted as having human-like emotions, motives and desires and is voiced by Brad Pitt.

 

"I'm only eating you because you've been a very, very naughty geocacher"

 

Next week, "Man's life during the time of the dinosaurs" that we learned by watching the Flintstones.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines...gingofallcaches

 

"Logging of All Physical Caches

 

Geocaches can be logged online as Found once the physical log has been signed."

 

 

Quit playing around. Does it really say that?

 

Well, if you read the entire paragraph, it's actually a qualification made April 2009 to prevent the deletion of logs that had extraneous additional logging requirements. In other words, the way I read it, it's not saying to finders "You must sign the log" so much as it's giving the guideline to placers "You mustn't require anything more than signing the log, except optionally"

Edited July 7, 2010 by needaxeo

[+Fangsoki]

I could not agree with the OP more. Like a few others here - I believe the hard and fast rule is (and should be) - "didn't sign the log, don't claim a find". A few answers for excuses that were given here (some of these may have been said already)

 

"The log was too wet" - Is it too hard to carry a bit of paper with you - and possibly a small plastic bag? If I do a cache that involves miles of walking - I always carry one with me.

 

"The log book was full" - See above. I have even torn a small square of paper, signed it, and put it in the bottom of a nano underneath the full log.

 

"Could not get the log out of the nano - didnt have any tweezers" - then buy some before you attempt micros/nanos? No find.

 

"I didn't have a pen" - Honestly - any self-respecting geocacher does have a pen. However, even just proof or a mark you were there is good enough I say. I saw one person log a find by leaving a 5c coin in a cache and quoting the year on the coin. That's good enough for me.

 

"I saw the cache but I couldnt reach it" or "the water was too cold" -. Sorry but part of the "game" is that you reach that cache and open it, and sign the log. It could be why the difficulty or terrain rating might be high - do you think?

 

I have seen people say "whats the problem? its only a game..". Yes its a game - and games are meant to be fair. - and they should have rules to make it fair There should be proof that you were there and that opened that cache.

 

That my 2c worth..

[+slukster]

This may be true but hiders are getting labeled as puritans for following this guideline. As for finders, aside from the sound logic tozainamboku uses to point out that the 8 steps on the getting started page are not proof that you must sign the log, I again go to the average everyday cacher who would look to this "getting started page" or the knowledge base page and say that this is a requirement.

 

That guideline only states that if a logbook is signed, then an online log can be made. It makes no statement regarding whether the online log can be made if the physical logbook is not signed. It leaves this determination to the cache owner. Given this, who is being labelled a puritan simply because they are allowing online logs when the physical log books have been signed?

 

From the following topic Cacher's who don't sign the logs...

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.

 

People are being labeled puritans because they are deleting logs because, in my opinion, they are following this guideline. That was my point.

Again, that guideline doesn't say what you think it does.

And again, as I said in my first post, I believe that the average cacher looking at the guidelines would believe it does say what you say I think it does say. Huh? LOL

[+Harry Dolphin]

This may be true but hiders are getting labeled as puritans for following this guideline. As for finders, aside from the sound logic tozainamboku uses to point out that the 8 steps on the getting started page are not proof that you must sign the log, I again go to the average everyday cacher who would look to this "getting started page" or the knowledge base page and say that this is a requirement.

 

That guideline only states that if a logbook is signed, then an online log can be made. It makes no statement regarding whether the online log can be made if the physical logbook is not signed. It leaves this determination to the cache owner. Given this, who is being labelled a puritan simply because they are allowing online logs when the physical log books have been signed?

 

From the following topic Cacher's who don't sign the logs...

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.

 

People are being labeled puritans because they are deleting logs because, in my opinion, they are following this guideline. That was my point.

 

There is a wide gamut of geocachers, ranging from one end to the other. As Motorcycle_Mama pointed out in Post #23:

http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines...gingofallcaches

 

"Logging of All Physical Caches

 

Geocaches can be logged online as Found once the physical log has been signed."

 

Many consider this to be the requirement for logging a cache on-line, and getting the smiley. I shall refer to those who hold this view 'traditionalists'. To call one a 'puritan' for holding this view is actually insulting. It's there in black-and-white (or whatever color your monitor is set for.) tozainamboku has attempted to set a loophole based on the usage of the word 'can'. Instead of 'this is required in order to'. Others, more logically, would read this to say that once you have found a cache, and signed it, you may log it on-line, if you so wish. Oh, wait! That is what it does say! Some people are very good at attempting to make unusual interpretations seem logical, without the use of logic.

At the other end of the spectrum, there are those who believe in 'entitlement'. 'Rules and guidelines do not pertain to ME!' I shall refer to them as the 'entitlists'. I'm entitled to log this cache because: I lost my pen. I couldn't reach the cache. I didn't bring tweezers. I drove somewhere nearby. I found the velcro. I couldn't find the cache, so I threw down a film canister somewhere near the hidden ammo can. There were too any muggles. I didn't want to get my hands dirty. Whatever. They're entitled! One sees far too much of that these days. There are some of us who would call those caches dishonest! (Of course, that would label us as 'puritans'. No. We're literalists! "But this is supposed to be fun!" How does this make dishonesty honesty???

There are many who fall between the two ends.

I had one cache owner say that I could log the missing cache, since I had looked for it. No. I didn't find it! = DNF. I do have some integrity!

tozainamboku is correct that there is no requirement that a CO delete bogus logs. Definitely a shame that more cache owners do not. In part, this is what has led to so many 'entitlists'.

Having fun is searching for the cache, and seeing new and interesting places (or new and not interesting lamp posts). Integrity is about following the guidelines. Find cache, sign log, get smiley. Entitlement is 'Oh. I looked for it, or not (as the case might be). I'm entitled to log a find and get a smiley!"

[+LukeTrocity]

I think everyone needs to take a step back and remember this is a GAME. Not only is it a game, but its a game where we aren't competing directly with each other. If someone falsifies a find it doesnt effect anyone except themselves. There are special situations where you cannot sign the log (IE wet, torn stuck etc) so you can't always sign it. At the end of the day does it really ruin the game if someone wants to "boost" their stats? Not for me it doesn't.

 

If we wanted to take the rule literally it says we need to "SIGN" the log. I know of quite a few people that use stickers. Does that mean they should be stripped of their finds?

 

Just seems like we're over thinking the entire reason for the game here. Exploring different areas with others and looking at the world in new ways. It's not about putting ink on a piece of paper.

[+Fangsoki]

I had one cache owner say that I could log the missing cache, since I had looked for it. No. I didn't find it! = DNF. I do have some integrity!

tozainamboku is correct that there is no requirement that a CO delete bogus logs. Definitely a shame that more cache owners do not. In part, this is what has led to so many 'entitlists'.

Having fun is searching for the cache, and seeing new and interesting places (or new and not interesting lamp posts). Integrity is about following the guidelines. Find cache, sign log, get smiley. Entitlement is 'Oh. I looked for it, or not (as the case might be). I'm entitled to log a find and get a smiley!"

Could not have said it better. The same thing happened to me - I logged a DNF after not being able to find a cache up a very steep hill. The CO went to GZ and could see I had been in the area and offered me to log a find. I politely refused their offer and I went back and dragged my carcass up the steep hill again to find the cache and log that find. I would rather cache with the forementioned integrity - and I would sincerely hope other fellow serious cachers would do the same.

 

I think everyone needs to take a step back and remember this is a GAME. Not only is it a game, but its a game where we aren't competing directly with each other. If someone falsifies a find it doesnt effect anyone except themselves. There are special situations where you cannot sign the log (IE wet, torn stuck etc) so you can't always sign it. At the end of the day does it really ruin the game if someone wants to "boost" their stats? Not for me it doesn't.

It just goes to show that the game has different meanings to different people. No offence - but I will have to agree to disagree with you here. Luketrocity.

[+LukeTrocity]

I had one cache owner say that I could log the missing cache, since I had looked for it. No. I didn't find it! = DNF. I do have some integrity!

tozainamboku is correct that there is no requirement that a CO delete bogus logs. Definitely a shame that more cache owners do not. In part, this is what has led to so many 'entitlists'.

Having fun is searching for the cache, and seeing new and interesting places (or new and not interesting lamp posts). Integrity is about following the guidelines. Find cache, sign log, get smiley. Entitlement is 'Oh. I looked for it, or not (as the case might be). I'm entitled to log a find and get a smiley!"

Could not have said it better. The same thing happened to me - I logged a DNF after not being able to find a cache up a very steep hill. The CO went to GZ and could see I had been in the area and offered me to log a find. I politely refused their offer and I went back and dragged my carcass up the steep hill again to find the cache and log that find. I would rather cache with the forementioned integrity - and I would sincerely hope other fellow serious cachers would do the same.

 

I think everyone needs to take a step back and remember this is a GAME. Not only is it a game, but its a game where we aren't competing directly with each other. If someone falsifies a find it doesnt effect anyone except themselves. There are special situations where you cannot sign the log (IE wet, torn stuck etc) so you can't always sign it. At the end of the day does it really ruin the game if someone wants to "boost" their stats? Not for me it doesn't.

It just goes to show that the game has different meanings to different people. No offence - but I will have to agree to disagree with you here. Luketrocity.

That's fine, but one in particular do you disagree with?

[+Take A Hike!]

This was logged on July 5 on a cache in northern AZ. How can a real geocacher claim a "FIND" on a cache he didn't even touch! "We didn't sign the log as there was a family sitting in their car within 50 feet using their cell phone. With all the 4th of July traffic we couldn't take the container out of its location without someone seeing us." YUP! Might as well sit at your computer and start logging "FINDS" Woo-hoo!

[+thedeadpirate]

This was logged on July 5 on a cache in northern AZ. How can a real geocacher claim a "FIND" on a cache he didn't even touch! "We didn't sign the log as there was a family sitting in their car within 50 feet using their cell phone. With all the 4th of July traffic we couldn't take the container out of its location without someone seeing us." YUP! Might as well sit at your computer and start logging "FINDS" Woo-hoo!

 

Sorry 'bout that. I'll go delete my found log now.

[+Fangsoki]

I had one cache owner say that I could log the missing cache, since I had looked for it. No. I didn't find it! = DNF. I do have some integrity!

tozainamboku is correct that there is no requirement that a CO delete bogus logs. Definitely a shame that more cache owners do not. In part, this is what has led to so many 'entitlists'.

Having fun is searching for the cache, and seeing new and interesting places (or new and not interesting lamp posts). Integrity is about following the guidelines. Find cache, sign log, get smiley. Entitlement is 'Oh. I looked for it, or not (as the case might be). I'm entitled to log a find and get a smiley!"

Could not have said it better. The same thing happened to me - I logged a DNF after not being able to find a cache up a very steep hill. The CO went to GZ and could see I had been in the area and offered me to log a find. I politely refused their offer and I went back and dragged my carcass up the steep hill again to find the cache and log that find. I would rather cache with the forementioned integrity - and I would sincerely hope other fellow serious cachers would do the same.

 

I think everyone needs to take a step back and remember this is a GAME. Not only is it a game, but its a game where we aren't competing directly with each other. If someone falsifies a find it doesnt effect anyone except themselves. There are special situations where you cannot sign the log (IE wet, torn stuck etc) so you can't always sign it. At the end of the day does it really ruin the game if someone wants to "boost" their stats? Not for me it doesn't.

It just goes to show that the game has different meanings to different people. No offence - but I will have to agree to disagree with you here. Luketrocity.

That's fine, but one in particular do you disagree with?

To be honest I did not agree with any of what you said - except that you stated that it is a game. When I play games, I like to follow the rules of games. How would a game like baseball go if everyone just ran whether they hit the ball or not? I could claim that I got the most runs. Doesn't seem like an exciting - nor fair game to me?

 

A cacher can always plan for contigencies of a problem with a cache (have a pen, some spare paper, have a pair of 50c tweezers)

 

I guess the problem occurs at most when the people that do this ARE or BECOME competitive against others. For me, right from the first cache, I have always stuck by the rules.

[+tozainamboku]

Many consider this to be the requirement for logging a cache on-line, and getting the smiley. I shall refer to those who hold this view 'traditionalists'. To call one a 'puritan' for holding this view is actually insulting. It's there in black-and-white (or whatever color your monitor is set for.) tozainamboku has attempted to set a loophole based on the usage of the word 'can'. Instead of 'this is required in order to'. Others, more logically, would read this to say that once you have found a cache, and signed it, you may log it on-line, if you so wish. Oh, wait! That is what it does say! Some people are very good at attempting to make unusual interpretations seem logical, without the use of logic.

I am shocked. I thought dolphins were smarter. Again the guideline Motorcycle_Momma quoted has to do with allowing finder to log a find online once they have signed the log. It was added soley to indicate that any requirement for logging online given by a cache owner beyond signing the log could be ignored. To read that it implies you must always sign the log in order to use the online found log is a logical fallacy know as denying the antecedent. It simply doesn't say what you believe it says.

At the other end of the spectrum, there are those who believe in 'entitlement'. 'Rules and guidelines do not pertain to ME!' I shall refer to them as the 'entitlists'. I'm entitled to log this cache because: I lost my pen. I couldn't reach the cache. I didn't bring tweezers. I drove somewhere nearby. I found the velcro. I couldn't find the cache, so I threw down a film canister somewhere near the hidden ammo can. There were too any muggles. I didn't want to get my hands dirty. Whatever. They're entitled! One sees far too much of that these days. There are some of us who would call those caches dishonest! (Of course, that would label us as 'puritans'. No. We're literalists! "But this is supposed to be fun!" How does this make dishonesty honesty???

This is one reason I refer to traditionalist as puritans. They seem to be overly concerned with how others play a game. The use terms like 'entitlists' and then complain that puritan is insulting. They lump all claims of finds without signing the log together as if forgetting a pen or getting chased by wasps is equivalent to sitting at home writing found logs on caches you never looked for. I won't go looking for the picture with Yoda at one end and Darth Vader at the other showing a range of logging practices. I generally find that people only log a find if they are comfortable with what they are doing. They believe they have earned the smiley and if the cache owner agrees I don't see why it should matter. No one can force a traditionalist to log a find on a cache they don't believe they deserve. It is also probably still the case, that a traditionalist cache owner can delete any online logs that aren't tied to a signature in the log book. But they ought not be so quick to judge those who are the true literalist and take the guideline at face value. The find log means you found the cache - not that you signed the log.

There are many who fall between the two ends.

I had one cache owner say that I could log the missing cache, since I had looked for it. No. I didn't find it! = DNF. I do have some integrity!

tozainamboku is correct that there is no requirement that a CO delete bogus logs. Definitely a shame that more cache owners do not. In part, this is what has led to so many 'entitlists'.

It may surprise you, but there is a guideline that COs delete bogus logs. I agree that more cache owners should be deleting what bogus logs there are. The difference is what we are calling bogus. Since the guidelines don't require that the log be signed, in my opinion, a bogus log is when the cache wasn't found. So I would agree that a cache owner saying to log a find because the cache isn't there is bogus. But I am willing to allow that for some geocachers may accept a broader definition of find. To me it is more important that the log is honest in reporting that cache was there or not and why they may not have signed the log, than whether it is a Found log or a DNF log. Some cache owners however may feel that just looking (especially when the cache is missing) is enough. I'm pretty sure that a cache owner can't have a pocket cache where there take the log book to and event and allow anyone who signs it to post a find online. But other than that, I'm willing to allow cache owners to decide what is bogus for their caches and what is not.

Having fun is searching for the cache, and seeing new and interesting places (or new and not interesting lamp posts). Integrity is about following the guidelines. Find cache, sign log, get smiley. Entitlement is 'Oh. I looked for it, or not (as the case might be). I'm entitled to log a find and get a smiley!"

You are way to concerned with the smiley that someone else gets. I find that most people are honest about how they play the game. It is pretty easy to seen who is logging finds when the find only a lid from a container, or find nothing but leave a replacement, or who just forgot a pen that day. If it makes you feel better to post these logs in the FIND = DID NOT FIND thread or to point at these people at a event, then so be it. I'm not going to get too upset because people want to play the game a little differently, since there is no guideline against playing it that way.

[+AlohaBra and MaksMom]

When I arrived in San Francisco this weekend and I had no pens and I found the cache I was going to, MaksMom waited there while I walked down the street to Walgreens to buy some pens and some hand sanitizer, both of which I had forgotten.

 

In case the message is lost; You need to sign the log! It is a game...play by the rules.

Edited July 8, 2010 by alohabra

[+Zangvogel]

For me, the joy of geocaching is in actually finding containers which are hidden somewhere. For other people the joy of geocaching may be in other things though. For me that's not a problem as long as their enjoyment does not make it impossible for others to enjoy this game.

 

So if someone likes to post a found, and is happy about that, I don't mind at all whether he actually found the box or not. Does not hurt me or other cachers in any way and made that person happy - good for him!

 

On the other hand, if for example someone destroys a cache and is happy about that, I DO mind. Because that kind of happiness destroys the fun for others.

 

And yes, 'officially' it may be against the rules to log a found when you have not signed the logbook. However it's a game, I'd say rule number one is "enjoy". For me that goes above the official rules.

[+sbell111]

This may be true but hiders are getting labeled as puritans for following this guideline. As for finders, aside from the sound logic tozainamboku uses to point out that the 8 steps on the getting started page are not proof that you must sign the log, I again go to the average everyday cacher who would look to this "getting started page" or the knowledge base page and say that this is a requirement.

 

That guideline only states that if a logbook is signed, then an online log can be made. It makes no statement regarding whether the online log can be made if the physical logbook is not signed. It leaves this determination to the cache owner. Given this, who is being labelled a puritan simply because they are allowing online logs when the physical log books have been signed?

 

From the following topic Cacher's who don't sign the logs...

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.

 

People are being labeled puritans because they are deleting logs because, in my opinion, they are following this guideline. That was my point.

Again, that guideline doesn't say what you think it does.

And again, as I said in my first post, I believe that the average cacher looking at the guidelines would believe it does say what you say I think it does say. Huh? LOL

The average cacher who reads that guideline and doesn't try to read more into it than what is actually written will see that it only speaks to whether an online log can be made if a logbook is signed. It doesn't speak to whether one can be made if the logbook is not signed as this is something that is left up to the individual cache owners determination. Edited July 8, 2010 by sbell111

[+sbell111]

This was logged on July 5 on a cache in northern AZ. How can a real geocacher claim a "FIND" on a cache he didn't even touch! "We didn't sign the log as there was a family sitting in their car within 50 feet using their cell phone. With all the 4th of July traffic we couldn't take the container out of its location without someone seeing us." YUP! Might as well sit at your computer and start logging "FINDS" Woo-hoo!

If the cache owner is convinced that the player actually located the cache and agrees to the online find log, then it's a find.

[+LukeTrocity]

This was logged on July 5 on a cache in northern AZ. How can a real geocacher claim a "FIND" on a cache he didn't even touch! "We didn't sign the log as there was a family sitting in their car within 50 feet using their cell phone. With all the 4th of July traffic we couldn't take the container out of its location without someone seeing us." YUP! Might as well sit at your computer and start logging "FINDS" Woo-hoo!

In this situation I agree with you, should totally delete the log if your the CO. I guess I don't understand why anyone cares about other peoples finds though. I'm concerned with my expierences with my family during the find, not some kid logging finds he never got.

 

I found a log yesterday that was full and soaked. Does that count as a DNF? I snapped a photo as proof and continued my hike.

[+redsox_mark]

 

I found a log yesterday that was full and soaked. Does that count as a DNF? I snapped a photo as proof and continued my hike.

 

To some COs, yes that is a DNF. You did not sign the log.

[Clan Riffster]

I found a log yesterday that was full and soaked. Does that count as a DNF? I snapped a photo as proof and continued my hike.

If that was a cache I was hunting, and for some reason I could not replace the log, I would have posted a note, rather than a find, simply because I feel I cannot claim a find, for me, unless my name is on the log. Had this been a cache I owned, I would have certainly allowed your find to stand, as I believe my definition of "found it" is not the only definition. As Kris would say, I'm a walking contradiction.

[+ARONK76]

This was my experience. I went to Canada for about 3 weeks and decided I would do some Caching. This was in late April and the temps were still down in the 40s. I went out looking for a cache and found it, unfortunately it was unreachable from dry land. I looked in the description and the only mention of getting wet was if it was the wrong time of year. Now, being that I am not from the area I was not aware that this meant go when the lake is frozen over.

Well, in the long run, since I was only visiting and did not have the usual resources and for my own safety I did not go in the water. However, I did log this as a find because had it been Summer and the water temps were safe for swimming I would have gone for a swim. In the online log I mentioned the details of my hunt and why I ddn't sign the log.

You see, every cache is different and the circumstances that go with the hunt vary.

Edited July 9, 2010 by ARONK76

[+thedeadpirate]

If that was a cache I was hunting, and for some reason I could not replace the log, I would have posted a note, rather than a find, simply because I feel I cannot claim a find, for me, unless my name is on the log. Had this been a cache I owned, I would have certainly allowed your find to stand, as I believe my definition of "found it" is not the only definition. As Kris would say, I'm a walking contradiction.

Guess I'm a walking contradiction as well 'cause that pretty much sums up my thoughts on the subject.

 

(of course I no longer log finds either)

[+ARONK76]

 

I found a log yesterday that was full and soaked. Does that count as a DNF? I snapped a photo as proof and continued my hike.

 

To some COs, yes that is a DNF. You did not sign the log.

 

So if several cachers have logged that the cache needs maint due to the log being damaged and the owner doesn't change the log then every other cacher shouldn't get the find. Down and dirty, I have found some cachers that look like the owner hid them a year ago and never came back to perform maint. If the owner doesn't maitain then that shouldn't screw the hunters.

[+Chokecherry]

I guess all subsequent cachers are to throw bits and scraps of paper into the cache to add to the mess.

[+thedeadpirate]

This thread is really long so I didn't read the whole thing but I am going to post a scenario fo everyone to consider.

 

This post is really long so I didn't read the whole thing but I am going to wait until someone who HAS read the thread posts.

 

*** Sorry about the snark. But really, if you admit up front that you don't have time to read other people's posts, then why would they want to read yours?

[+thedeadpirate]

I guess all subsequent cachers are to throw bits and scraps of paper into the cache to add to the mess.

 

That, and a Needs Maintenance log are pretty much the accepted norm.

 

Of course if there are already a number of NM logs, feel free to toss in a Needs Archival log as well.

[+Snow_Friends]

I recently arrived at GZ and had to climb 10 ft up a tree to sign a log.

There are several cachers in our area that have the physical ability to hike a short trail but could not climb a tree.

They made the hike, they spotted the container, are you really going to deny a find because of a physical handicap? Or would you say that if you are elderly or handicapped you are not allowed to geocache?

Note, that there was no warning of needing the ability to climb listed in the cache description.

[+Castle Mischief]

This was my experience. I went to Canada for about 3 weeks and decided I would do some Caching. This was in late April and the temps were still down in the 40s. I went out looking for a cache and found it, unfortunately it was unreachable from dry land. I looked in the description and the only mention of getting wet was if it was the wrong time of year. Now, being that I am not from the area I was not aware that this meant go when the lake is frozen over.

Well, in the long run, since I was only visiting and did not have the usual resources and for my own safety I did not go in the water. However, I did log this as a find because had it been Summer and the water temps were safe for swimming I would have gone for a swim. In the online log I mentioned the details of my hunt and why I ddn't sign the log.

You see, every cache is different and the circumstances that go with the hunt vary.

 

So how far away were you from the container and could you even make visible contact?

[+ARONK76]

This was my experience. I went to Canada for about 3 weeks and decided I would do some Caching. This was in late April and the temps were still down in the 40s. I went out looking for a cache and found it, unfortunately it was unreachable from dry land. I looked in the description and the only mention of getting wet was if it was the wrong time of year. Now, being that I am not from the area I was not aware that this meant go when the lake is frozen over.

Well, in the long run, since I was only visiting and did not have the usual resources and for my own safety I did not go in the water. However, I did log this as a find because had it been Summer and the water temps were safe for swimming I would have gone for a swim. In the online log I mentioned the details of my hunt and why I ddn't sign the log.

You see, every cache is different and the circumstances that go with the hunt vary.

 

So how far away were you from the container and could you even make visible contact?

 

The cahce was attached to a tree branch about 4-5 out of my reach and the water was about 4 ft deep. Yes, I had visible contact and could describe the cache to the owner if it had been and issue.

[+Castle Mischief]

So how far away were you from the container and could you even make visible contact?

 

The cahce was attached to a tree branch about 4-5 out of my reach and the water was about 4 ft deep. Yes, I had visible contact and could describe the cache to the owner if it had been and issue.

 

Huh. And no problems from the CO after you logged the find?

[+piper28]

Heck, it'd probably annoy some owners that the name that gets logged in the cache for my wife and I doesn't match the name I log in here. (Generally my wife does the signing of log, and I'm not sure she even knows the name of the account that I use for logging online ). So if some cache owner decided to go through and match, it wouldn't match up.

 

If I got to a cache, had it open, then discovered I had nothing to sign it with, it's going to be counted as a find for me, and if some cache owner doesn't like it, that's their problem, not mine.

 

If I've got a nano that I've opened and can't get the log out because apparently some cache owner feels it's reasonable to need tweezers to get it out, that's going to count as a find too. I'm sorry, but I don't agree that it's reasonable to expect people to bring tweezers with them caching.

 

But quite frankly, any cache owner that decides they need to delete a log that someone said they didn't have a pen and couldn't sign the log, well, for me that person's going to go down as an anal twit who's caches aren't going to be high on my list of ones I want to do. There's plenty of other caches out there, and for that cache owner, I'm sure there's plenty of cachers out there that will slavishly adhere to the letter of their law.

 

Funny, I thought we were supposed to be having fun.

[+unclefunky]

Heck, it'd probably annoy some owners that the name that gets logged in the cache for my wife and I doesn't match the name I log in here. (Generally my wife does the signing of log, and I'm not sure she even knows the name of the account that I use for logging online ). So if some cache owner decided to go through and match, it wouldn't match up.

 

If I got to a cache, had it open, then discovered I had nothing to sign it with, it's going to be counted as a find for me, and if some cache owner doesn't like it, that's their problem, not mine.

 

If I've got a nano that I've opened and can't get the log out because apparently some cache owner feels it's reasonable to need tweezers to get it out, that's going to count as a find too. I'm sorry, but I don't agree that it's reasonable to expect people to bring tweezers with them caching.

 

But quite frankly, any cache owner that decides they need to delete a log that someone said they didn't have a pen and couldn't sign the log, well, for me that person's going to go down as an anal twit who's caches aren't going to be high on my list of ones I want to do. There's plenty of other caches out there, and for that cache owner, I'm sure there's plenty of cachers out there that will slavishly adhere to the letter of their law.

 

Funny, I thought we were supposed to be having fun.

I agree. It's supposed to be fun, and I did legitimately find it. Here is the definition of "Find": You found it. Now in geocachinig, find doesn't mean just seeing it, but it also doesn't mean signing it. If you saw the cache, grabbed it, and opened it to discover you had no pen, that's good enough for me. I trust most cachers. Now when I see someone with 2 finds I might be a little suspect, but no big deal. Still, whenever I end up in this position myself, I make sure to drop the owner a note and explain the situation. I usually have a pretty good reason too. I also appreciate this practice on my caches, but in the end, it's just fun. As an owner, do what you like, but it doesn't look very sympathetic if you delete logs like they're going out of style.

[+roziecakes]

 

I found a log yesterday that was full and soaked. Does that count as a DNF? I snapped a photo as proof and continued my hike.

 

To some COs, yes that is a DNF. You did not sign the log.

 

This is true, it depends on what the cache owner considers to be okay or not. Honestly, I think most are okay with the snap a picture method when you find an icky wet or full logbook. But, that's part of the reason why 99% of the time I carry some paper with me.

 

But then again, there are cache owners who would prefer to do all their own maintenance and don't want you to put more paper into their cache... sometimes it's hard to figure out what's what; but I think if you have good intent and try your best to be honest, and follow the guidelines as best you can, then everyone can keep enjoying themselves.