No Stickers, Labels, or Stamps allowed.

[+KBLAST]

I have a cache with 4 (count 'em, FOUR!) decoys. It is a 4 star difficulty cache. Recently, someone discovered one of the decoys hidden in the light post. The decoy had a couple wasps on it, so they logged it as a find... they were certain I would be ok with that. As this was a puzzle and they thought the 4 difficulty was because of the puzzle, I understood, but I explained he had NOT found the REAL cache. Following Toz's reasoning, this person could log a find ANYWAY, even though they did NOT sign the cache. I'm glad this person was gracious enough to understand and deleted their find, as I had a number of previous finders getting upset they worked so hard to make the REAL find and this guy had posted a find on the light post fake.

 

Heck... maybe I'll just go out to that 5 difficulty that only one person has found in 3 years and post my found it because I'm pretty sure the cache was moved or muggled.

 

I understand why owners need to be understanding to finders who forget a pen, or found a mess instead of a log sheet, but let's not be silly, folks.

[+thedeadpirate]

Following Toz's reasoning, this person could log a find ANYWAY, even though they did NOT sign the cache.

Actually, following TOZ's reasoning, this person could have logged a find having never left his living room. There is nothing in the software that prevents this. It would be up to you whether or not you allowed that log to stand.

 

However, once that finder found the real cache and signed the log, then you would no longer have a valid reason to delete his log unless he posted a spoiler.

[+tozainamboku]

Let me explain my reasoning, since you all have it wrong.

 

If the finder did not know this cache had a decoy and found the container he did, but decided not to open it up and sign the log because there were wasps, he should do what he did and log a find online. If the cache owner believed that what was found was the decoy an not the real cache he should contact the finder and explain the situation. The finder should understand that he didn't find the cache and change his log to a DNF. If the finder doesn't do it, the cache owner can delete the log. If the finder actually found the correct final and signed the log book, he could then dispute the cache owner's claim that he had only found a decoy. If he happened to have found the correct final but didn't sign the log and could offer no evidence that he found the real cache, the cache owner can delete the log.

 

If the cache owner believes the finder had found the correct final cache and didn't sign the log because of the wasps, he should stop being a jerk and let the online log stand.

 

I have never say you should log a find when you had never left your living room. All I have said is that if you find a cache and for some reason you didn't sign the log you can go ahead and log the find online. Reasonable cache owners should accept your log so long as they don't believe it is bogus; i.e., if they feel that you actually found the cache and could have signed the log.

[+thedeadpirate]

I have never say you should log a find when you had never left your living room. All I have said is that if you find a cache and for some reason you didn't sign the log you can go ahead and log the find online. Reasonable cache owners should accept your log so long as they don't believe it is bogus; i.e., if they feel that you actually found the cache and could have signed the log.

 

Oh Toz, for someone who pays such particular attention to phrasing, you missed my post.

 

Reread it and then tell me again that I misunderstand your reasoning.

 

I didn't say he should log a find having never left his living room. I say he could. Do you dispute that should the CO choose to let that log stand that it is his prerogative?

 

The only thing the guideline says is that as long as your John Hancock is in the physical logbook that the CO cannot delete that log. And if the CO does delete it, that TPTB will most likely reinstate it. (the guidelines don't actually say that last part; just TPTB's track record.)

[+tozainamboku]

I have never say you should log a find when you had never left your living room. All I have said is that if you find a cache and for some reason you didn't sign the log you can go ahead and log the find online. Reasonable cache owners should accept your log so long as they don't believe it is bogus; i.e., if they feel that you actually found the cache and could have signed the log.

 

Oh Toz, for someone who pays such particular attention to phrasing, you missed my post.

 

Reread it and then tell me again that I misunderstand your reasoning.

 

I didn't say he should log a find having never left his living room. I say he could. Do you dispute that should the CO choose to let that log stand that it is his prerogative?

The guideline say

The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements.

So while a cache owner could let the log stand he does so at the risk of having his cache archived for lack of maintenance. I've never seen this done for a physical cache, but I have seen virtuals archived because a cache owner allowed armchair logging.

 

The only thing the guideline says is that as long as your John Hancock is in the physical logbook that the CO cannot delete that log. And if the CO does delete it, that TPTB will most likely reinstate it. (the guidelines don't actually say that last part; just TPTB's track record.)

Again, the only purpose of that statement is to prevent a cache owner from levying additional logging requirements. A cache owner can delete logs when the physical log was signed. If the owner feels the log is a spoiler or if the log contains inappropriate language, is abusive, or is off-topic, he can clearly delete the log (and in some cases risk being in violation of the guidelines if the log isn't deleted). I don't think Groundspeak would reinstate any of these logs. They would tell the finder to re-log the find without the objectionable material. Logs that have been reinstated are only those where the cache owner was trying to enforce an ALR. My guess though is that what mostly happens in the cache owner is told that ALRs can no longer be enforced and that they must allow the finder to re-log their find. Reinstatement probably only happens when the cache owner is being a jerk an not allowing the cache to be re-logged.

Edited July 30, 2010 by tozainamboku

[+thedeadpirate]

The guideline say

The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements.

So while a cache owner could let the log stand he does so at the risk of having his cache archived for lack of maintenance. I've never seen this done for a physical cache, but I have seen virtuals archived because a cache owner allowed armchair logging

So JoeCacher logs a find saying he found the cache but didn't sign it because of the wasps. But JoeCacher makes no mention that he didn't actually go to the site. He just logs the find as if he did go. Kblast sees the log. He feels bad due to the wasps incident so he feels like he should just go ahead and let JoeCacher keep that log. You're saying that even though neither Kblast nor TPTB realize that JoeCacher really just phoned it in that Kblast is really risking having his cache archived for lack of maintenance?

 

The only thing the guideline says is that as long as your John Hancock is in the physical logbook that the CO cannot delete that log. And if the CO does delete it, that TPTB will most likely reinstate it. (the guidelines don't actually say that last part; just TPTB's track record.)

Again, the only purpose of that statement is to prevent a cache owner from levying additional logging requirements. A cache owner can delete logs when the physical log was signed. If the owner feels the log is a spoiler or if the log contains inappropriate language, is abusive, or is off-topic, he can clearly delete the log (and in some cases risk being in violation of the guidelines if the log isn't deleted). I don't think Groundspeak would reinstate any of these logs. They would tell the finder to re-log the find without the objectionable material.

Didn't I cover the "if it contains a spoiler" earlier? I'm pretty sure I did. If I didn't, I surely meant to. I've pretty much always included that exception. I've also said that the finder can relog that find sans the spoiler part and there's nothing the CO can do about it. (provided his name is in the logbook or his sticker or his stamp.) (I added the sticker and stamp due to this particular threads topic)

 

Logs that have been reinstated are only those where the cache owner was trying to enforce an ALR.

I don't remember the exact thread. But I am 99% sure you are wrong here. But I'll concede that point for the time being. It's late, so I'll have to wait until tomorrow to dig up that thread.

[+thedeadpirate]

Oh, I did find the spoiler comment.

 

However, once that finder found the real cache and signed the log, then you would no longer have a valid reason to delete his log unless he posted a spoiler.

 

*** Edited to add that I meant bad language, hate language, using the listing as a forum, etc. I just assumed that when I said spoiler that most people understood that I meant those as well.

Edited July 30, 2010 by GeoBain

[+thedeadpirate]

I don't remember the exact thread. But I am 99% sure you are wrong here. But I'll concede that point for the time being. It's late, so I'll have to wait until tomorrow to dig up that thread.

I'm gonna have to concede this point. I was thinking of this thread where a bunch of Joranda's caches were deleted supposedly in retaliation, even though he had signed the logbooks. But, it appears as this was never resolved. Or at least, if it was he did not post the resolution in that thread.

 

I think I'll bump it and see it there was ever an answer.

[I!]

Most of this verbiage asserting cut-and-dried interpretations of the Guidelines is just silly. They are written in English, for heaven's sake, not formal logic: they will always be ambiguous.

 

It's more interesting to discuss what you would do in certain situations, not what loopholes in the Guidelines some hypothetical JoeCacher might be able to exploit. I assume that in KBLAST's example we all agree that things worked out okay? Good. Next!

[+thedeadpirate]

Most of this verbiage asserting cut-and-dried interpretations of the Guidelines is just silly.

What's silly for one is a good way to pass time for others.

 

(btw, I agree with you, but I happen to be a silly ole' fart)

[+sbell111]

Until then, we are left to our opinions on what TPTB intended with the guidelines.

I don't know how you can say that since when the new guideline came out TPTB stated specifically why the change was made and why it says what it says (and doesn't say).

 

Ok, you win. TPTB do not intend for people to sign the logbooks.

The original argument was that the guidelines required a logbook signature.

 

I responed that the guidelines did not contain this requirement and that TPTB leave the decision as to whether a find can be made to the cache owner if the logbook is not signed.

 

You respond that TPTB's intentions are for people to sign the logbooks.

 

No one is arguing that logbooks shouldn't be signed or that TPTB don't think that signing the logbook is a great idea. Your adjusting the argument in this manner does this thread and you a disservice.

 

Would it blow your mind to learn that there have been times when TPTB havn't signed the log but have logged finds? What does that knowledge do to your argument?

[+thedeadpirate]

Would it blow your mind to learn that there have been times when TPTB havn't signed the log but have logged finds?

No, not at all.

 

What does that knowledge do to your argument?

Absolutely nothing. It only re-enforces what I have said all along.

 

While it may be their intention that logbooks be signed they know there are times when this is not possible. That's what I have said all along. So I'm not sure what your point is.

 

Both you and Toz seem the think I disagree with the 2 of you.

[+sbell111]

Would it blow your mind to learn that there have been times when TPTB havn't signed the log but have logged finds?

No, not at all.

 

What does that knowledge do to your argument?

Absolutely nothing. It only re-enforces what I have said all along.

 

While it may be their intention that logbooks be signed they know there are times when this is not possible. That's what I have said all along. So I'm not sure what your point is.

 

Both you and Toz seem the think I disagree with the 2 of you.

I must have been fooled by those posts where you seemed to be disagreeing.

[+Castle Mischief]

I think I'm going to start placing blank labels in logs and signing over the label. IS YOUR MIND BLOWN YET?

[+thedeadpirate]

I must have been fooled by those posts where you seemed to be disagreeing.

 

You must have been.

 

The only thing I really disagree with Toz about is how far he takes the argument. Which, by the way, is the only reason I've taken this argument as far as I have.

 

When you decide to pick apart a sentence, you can spend hours upon hours arguing every single word.

 

But at the end of the day, it is clear to most people that logbooks should be signed, regardless of whether this is an absolute requirement or not.

 

We are basically on the honor system in this game. We have a responsibility to respect each others' wishes since this game depends on the charity of others.

[+sbell111]

I must have been fooled by those posts where you seemed to be disagreeing.

 

You must have been.

 

The only thing I really disagree with Toz about is how far he takes the argument. Which, by the way, is the only reason I've taken this argument as far as I have.

 

When you decide to pick apart a sentence, you can spend hours upon hours arguing every single word.

 

But at the end of the day, it is clear to most people that logbooks should be signed, regardless of whether this is an absolute requirement or not.

 

We are basically on the honor system in this game. We have a responsibility to respect each others' wishes since this game depends on the charity of others.

The thing is, Toz's argument and mine was merely in opposition to those making the argument that signing the logbook is an absolute requirement that is mandated by the guidelines. No one has argued that signing the logbook isn't a good idea.

[+thedeadpirate]

So, is it TPTB's intention that logbooks be signed or not?

[+sbell111]

So, is it TPTB's intention that logbooks be signed or not?

I think that TPTB could seriously care less. They have clearly made that an issue for cache owners.

[+Castle Mischief]

So, is it TPTB's intention that logbooks be signed or not?

I think that TPTB could seriously care less. They have clearly made that an issue for cache owners.

 

To a point. I think if a cache owner was allowing people to claim "found it" on a physical cache that was not there I think they would care enough to archive the cache.

[+ventura_kids]

Let me explain my reasoning, since you all have it wrong.

 

If the finder did not know this cache had a decoy and found the container he did, but decided not to open it up and sign the log because there were wasps, he should do what he did and log a find online. If the cache owner believed that what was found was the decoy an not the real cache he should contact the finder and explain the situation. The finder should understand that he didn't find the cache and change his log to a DNF. If the finder doesn't do it, the cache owner can delete the log. If the finder actually found the correct final and signed the log book, he could then dispute the cache owner's claim that he had only found a decoy. If he happened to have found the correct final but didn't sign the log and could offer no evidence that he found the real cache, the cache owner can delete the log.

 

If the cache owner believes the finder had found the correct final cache and didn't sign the log because of the wasps, he should stop being a jerk and let the online log stand.

 

.......

 

OK, ok..... this just confirms the reason we sticker the decoys, and any cache-looking item that we see nearby. Odds are...we might sticker the real one by accident.

[+sbell111]

So, is it TPTB's intention that logbooks be signed or not?

I think that TPTB could seriously care less. They have clearly made that an issue for cache owners.

 

To a point. I think if a cache owner was allowing people to claim "found it" on a physical cache that was not there I think they would care enough to archive the cache.

Agreed, but that's a completely different issue.

[+thedeadpirate]

So, is it TPTB's intention that logbooks be signed or not?

I think that TPTB could seriously care less.

So you are saying that TPTB really care about the issue. We do agree.

[+tozainamboku]

So, is it TPTB's intention that logbooks be signed or not?

The question is not whether the TPTB intend for cachers to write in the physical log. The question is whether they intend the online Found log to be use only if the physical log was signed.

 

The fact is most cache owners are quite willing to accept an online log where the cacher hasn't sign the physical log whether or not they say so in their online log. I think TPTB are comfortable with the online Found log being used this way.

 

Nobody complains that Geobain logs notes online despite having written his name in the physical log. Nobody is complaining about people who sign the physical log and don't log online at all. The only complaints we get is when some didn't write their name in the physical log but still feels they have found the cache and want to share that fact by using a Found It log. Clearly there are some cases where a cache owner may feel the cache wasn't "found". Perhaps they have a decoy and want to know you found the right cache. Perhaps they intend someone to climb a tree or overcome some physical challenge to retrieve or open the cache. The cache owner gets to defined what a find is, with the limitation that if the finder was able to sign the log, then there shouldn't be any additional requirements. I won't go into all the issues that were created when the ALR guidelines were changed, but one thing that happened was to foster a belief that a signed log was now the definition of when to use the Found It log. The guideline does not mean that a cache owner must require physical logs be signed. Nor does it, IMO, mean that cache owner have automatic carte blanche to delete Found logs because someone didn't sign the log. Cache owners should us common sense. If someone found their cache and has a good reason for signing the log, they shouldn't be deleting logs just because they can.

[+thedeadpirate]

The question is whether they intend the online Found log to be use only if the physical log was signed.

If that was their intention, they would have stated it more precisely. I have long agreed this is not their intention. The CO should have the right to allow a find if the person logging could not sign the logbook or if a team name was signed and the finder is logging individually, et.. It would be impossible for them to police this anyway. But I still contend that it is their intention that finders sign the logbook.

 

The fact is most cache owners are quite willing to accept an online log where the cacher hasn't sign the physical log whether or not they say so in their online log. I think TPTB are comfortable with the online Found log being used this way.

Again, I completely agree. There is actually a relatively small percentage of CO's with control issues who even bother to check the logbook and reconcile signatures in the logbook with the online finds.

 

The only complaints we get is when some didn't write their name in the physical log but still feels they have found the cache and want to share that fact by using a Found It log.

The problem is that even if the finder has a legitimate reason for not signing the log, TPTB are not going to reinstate that log. Without a signature, the finder is at the mercy of the CO. Hopefully, that CO is not a control freak.

 

I won't go into all the issues that were created when the ALR guidelines were changed, but one thing that happened was to foster a belief that a signed log was now the definition of when to use the Found It log.

While it does not define the only instance that a Found It log can be used, it is pretty much the defacto definition of a find. With the removal of the ALRs, it's the only enforceable definition anyway. By enforceable, I mean that the only find log TPTB will restore is one in which the finder has signed the logbook.

 

This does not, however, negate the fact that a CO can allow online finds in cases where the finder could not sign the logbook or when a team name was used, etc..

 

The guideline does not mean that a cache owner must require physical logs be signed.

Agreed

 

Nor does it, IMO, mean that cache owner have automatic carte blanche to delete Found logs because someone didn't sign the log.

I have to disagree with you here. They shouldn't have carte blanche, but they do. A sig in the logbook is the only reason I am aware of for which TPTB will restore a find log.

 

Cache owners should us common sense. If someone found their cache and has a good reason for signing the log, they shouldn't be deleting logs just because they can.

100% agree with you. As I have said a number of times, this game depends on the kindness and respect of others.

 

Above all, it is meant to be fun. If common sense had been used to begin with, we would still have some fun ALR caches.

[+thedeadpirate]

The cache owner gets to defined what a find is, with the limitation that if the finder was able to sign the log, then there shouldn't be any additional requirements.

I just caught this on a reread.

 

Perhaps this is where we actually differ.

 

You believe a cache owner gets to define what a find is.

 

Because I believe that the defacto definition of a find is a signed logbook, I believe a cache owner gets to define what exceptions he will allow.

[+dfx]

[+thedeadpirate]

 

Do TPTB intend for you to be eating popcorn in their forums?

[+dfx]

Do TPTB intend for you to be eating popcorn in their forums?

maybe, maybe not. in any case, it's the frog who's eating popcorn, not me, and the frog = TPTB

 

sorry, wrong smiley, i should put instead

Edited July 31, 2010 by dfx

[+somegeek]

My penmanship is a form of encryption it's so bad at times... a sticker would do the world a favor.

[+the family bu]

I personally enjoy looking at the different stickers and stamps in the logs. This is includes my own caches.

[+sunriseserenade]

WOW.. Let's see here..

1. If a person is severely arthritic in their hands it would be easier for them to leave a sticker or stamp.

2.Leaving your initials would not be good as there could be many initials the same.

3.There is a reason people put in Bring Your Own Writing Utensil.

4. Finding a micro and not wanting to pull it out, sign it and then roll it up again as tight as I found it, in the rain is o.k. with me. I have found many micros like that and just put it back without signing. I am not going to log it in on the puter as I think this is a form of cheating. I am just satisfied and happy in knowing I found it... It is not all about the numbers for me.. It is the challenge.

Cache on and have fun fun fun

[+The Jester]

4. Finding a micro and not wanting to pull it out, sign it and then roll it up again as tight as I found it, in the rain is o.k. with me. I have found many micros like that and just put it back without signing. I am not going to log it in on the puter as I think this is a form of cheating. I am just satisfied and happy in knowing I found it... It is not all about the numbers for me.. It is the challenge.

Cache on and have fun fun fun

I carry a small collapsible unbrella (less than nine inches closed) for this situation. It gives me a dry area to open caches. It fits in my small belt pouch/cache kit or my pocket. Or I hang it from my pack with a mini-biner.

[+TeamEpik]

wow I can't believe all this . This is all about getting out of the house having fun . How really cares if you use a sticker,stamp, pen . Just go have fun . To many people want to get all tied up in the little stuff . I think the next log I come to I should use a stamp on a sticker that i marked with a pen.

[+Chokecherry]

I think some of the major reason my dad won't do this with me is because he's scared he'll have to sign the log. He can't control the shaking in his hands due to some nerve issues and it has rendered him basically unable to do stuff like hold a pencil and sign something like that, let alone something really tiny.

 

I saw some stickers in logs the other weekend when I was out and loved them. They were cute and they had the font small enough so they could put more than just their name on them.

[Mia Famiglia]

newbie question here. Am i 'supposed' to sign my actual legal name in the log book, or my username? I know signing is a word in question here but consider it used in the traditional script sense.

[Andronicus]

newbie question here. Am i 'supposed' to sign my actual legal name in the log book, or my username? I know signing is a word in question here but consider it used in the traditional script sense.

Whatervery you like...If the owner audits the log book, he may be confused by your use of your legal name. I use my username.

[+niraD]

newbie question here. Am i 'supposed' to sign my actual legal name in the log book, or my username? I know signing is a word in question here but consider it used in the traditional script sense.

I've never signed a cache log with my legal signature. I print the date and my geocaching username (and sometimes other comments, when there's room in the log and I have time to write more).

 

When you log online, cache owners will see your geocaching username. If they verify online logs against the physical log, then they'll compare whatever is in the physical log with the geocaching usernames in the online logs.

[+northernpenguin]

What's next? Complaints the cacher didn't use a #2 pencil to sign their name.

 

I personally demand each cacher brings a sticker that contains exactly 15% recycled material and the adhesive must be made using yak fur. The ink selected must match Pantone Blue 072S. The sticker must contain no more than 6 different ink colours, but no less than 4. If a logo is included said logo cannot be more than 48% of the vertical dimension of the sticker.

 

Logs may be deleted if the application of the sticker exceeds +-10% of the alignment with the horizontal edge of the logbook, or if the sticker is applied within 5% of any border of the page. Also the sticker must be applied with no more then 20 newtons of force but no less than 10 newtons. If it is raining, or snowing, a maximum of 2% relative humidity is permitted in the ziplock bag after stickering the log book.

 

or .... I could just go out caching.

[+LightHouseSeekers]

What if we use Signature Stamps ?

[+sbell111]

What if we use Signature Stamps ?

Some people will think it's cool. Some will complain about it. Most won't care either way.

 

Just like everything else.

[+SprayPaint]

I will then hide the cache 40 feet up in a tree in an ammo can with the cover welded shut. We will see who the people who really want a smiley are

 

Hey Toz, Whats the GC on that one... I already have my hat ready to go! of course it will be me in my Pirate Garb!

[+roziecakes]

I will then hide the cache 40 feet up in a tree in an ammo can with the cover welded shut. We will see who the people who really want a smiley are

 

Hey Toz, Whats the GC on that one... I already have my hat ready to go! of course it will be me in my Pirate Garb!

 

Do you cache in pirate garb?! I LOVE it!!