people not signing the logbbook. and a travel bug question.

[+RandomH3ro]

ill start it off like this, my father placed a cache a week ago. since then it has been found "5" times. upon a visit to the cache today to check on it, the cache was found out in the open, and not hid well. a scan of the contents showed that both travel bugs listed in cache were gone, but showed still in it. ill get to this later.

 

the log book however, had only 1 entry in it. and it belonged to the newest finder of the cache. even the FTF stated he signed the log, but no entry was found. any of you ever deal with this, and should we be a "meanie" about it and delete the logs since the logbook was not signed? i dunno, maybe i should just leave it be.

 

another question that pertains to the Tb's. i noticed that the 2 bug were gone, however i also realize that Gc doesnt make too big of a deal when it comes to relaying what Tb;s are to the "no0bs". recently, i just had a person pick up one of my Tb's and put in her log that she picked it up, but it still shows in the cache, and after a research of her history, i found out she does pick up and eventually drop off Tb's, but she doesnt do it properly. some random cacher will find them in a random cache.

 

this got me to thinking, would it be rude to put a "explanation" of Tb's on a cache page like on my fathers cache? its an ammo box and is big enough for them, but them not being logged out could be due to "no0b" cachers maybe?

 

any opinions?

[+escomag]

ill start it off like this, my father placed a cache a week ago. since then it has been found "5" times. upon a visit to the cache today to check on it, the cache was found out in the open, and not hid well. a scan of the contents showed that both travel bugs listed in cache were gone, but showed still in it. ill get to this later.

 

the log book however, had only 1 entry in it. and it belonged to the newest finder of the cache. even the FTF stated he signed the log, but no entry was found. any of you ever deal with this, and should we be a "meanie" about it and delete the logs since the logbook was not signed? i dunno, maybe i should just leave it be.

 

another question that pertains to the Tb's. i noticed that the 2 bug were gone, however i also realize that Gc doesnt make too big of a deal when it comes to relaying what Tb;s are to the "no0bs". recently, i just had a person pick up one of my Tb's and put in her log that she picked it up, but it still shows in the cache, and after a research of her history, i found out she does pick up and eventually drop off Tb's, but she doesnt do it properly. some random cacher will find them in a random cache.

 

this got me to thinking, would it be rude to put a "explanation" of Tb's on a cache page like on my fathers cache? its an ammo box and is big enough for them, but them not being logged out could be due to "no0b" cachers maybe?

 

any opinions?

How do you know that the cache was not muggled, and the top log sheet removed?

[imwithstupider]

Why would someone take the top sheet out of the logbook?

[+power69]

Why would someone take the top sheet out of the logbook?

so they could log as ftf!

[imwithstupider]

I guess that makes sense. It doesn't sound very nice though.

[+Isonzo Karst]

The logbook had sheets torn out of it.

 

Please mark any trackables missing on their pages. Mark Missing

[+briansnat]

I wouldn't delete a log unless I was fairly certain that the logger did not visit the cache. If he claims to have signed the log, but there is no signature in the book, I would mention that to him. If he is adamant that he signed, then I'll assume someone tore out the page. That is unless he has a history of "missing pages" and there are other things that don't add up.

 

For example cheaters often will log a bunch of caches in a day with an unusual pattern and often enter inappropriate logs. For example he finds individual caches many miles apart, ignoring numerous caches in between that most people wouldn't pass up. His logs do not fit the cache. For example "short walk and easy find" on a cache that is a 2 mile hike and a difficult find.

 

Of course all that stuff can be legit. Caches logged miles apart could be someone working on a challenge cache. He could have mistaken one cache for another in his log, or 2 miles can be a short walk in his mind. But when you combine all of that plus a missing signature in multiple caches, then the weight of evidence tells me that he is a phony and I will delete his log.

 

But delete a log because of one missing signature? I don't think I'd do that in most cases.

[+Chokecherry]

Your cache is only a week old. Not everyone logs online immediately. For some people there's a lag of a week or more. While on vacation over a week ago my friend dropped and grabbed bugs out of a cache and still hasn't had time to log them due to work. Give people a little time.

 

As for the missing sheets. Sounds like someone tore out the other names.

[AZcachemeister]

I don't see any reference (by the OP) that it appeared sheets were removed from the logbook.

 

I do know that there are 'paper products' often used as logbooks where it would be easy to remove a page or five without it being very obvious. I also know that people sometimes sign the 'wrong' side of the logbook, and that sometimes the logbook gets flipped over and people start on the other side before going all the way through.

 

If someone wanted to remove the FTF signature in order to claim the FTF, then why aren't we discussing two claims to the FTF?

 

I would ask the people whose signatures are missing some very pointed questions about the container, or details about the location. If not answered to my satisfaction...delete.

[+geodarts]

If there are four or five finds without a signature, I would assume that the log sheet was torn. Other finders seemingly would have noticed if they were signing a blank log -- and an ammo can hide does seem like it would be getting a rash of dnfs that were mistakenly entered as finds -- or be the type of hide where the first several people who claimed to found it decided to lie. One or two, but four? In fact, not signing the log as the first to find might be noticed. And I would not think that the fifth finder removed the log to get a first, for whatever that is worth, since there is no indication that anyone is claiming the three initials. So iIf the cache was out in the open, different from where it was originally placed, with various things missing, I might assume someone had come along and caused some trouble.

 

It is not unheard of for people to notice ammo cans. I revisited one that was a few miles out in the middle of nowhere, that required hiking down an overgrown trail blocked by fallen trees and bushwhacking from there, that was hidden from plain view -- and when we came back it was out in the open with a note about how they had come across it while mushroom hunting.

 

There are a number of ways that things can disappear from caches -- from log sheets to contents.. I would let it go but keep my eye on the container to see if any further problems rise at that location. If I contacted anyone,it would be the last finder just to verify that they found the cache in the open.

Edited August 29, 2010 by mulvaney

[+Hunyocks3]

I've only been geocaching for about a month, but I have a sneaking suspicion I've forgotten to sign at least a log or two. I usually go caching with at least one child, sometimes two (both boys, 7 and 3) and like most kids their age, they generate their own Sphere of Chaos (like the Bermuda Triangle, except trains of thought also get lost inside). If you have boys, no explanation is necessary; if you don't then none will suffice... One of these days, I'll probably take the log and leave my pen in the container LOL.

[+e-bird67]

I just had the same problem this week with a brand new cache. Someone logged online and claimed FTF, and then the second person logged online and said that the first person had not signed the paper log. Now, we're talking a bison tube with one sheet of paper inside, so there's no way anyone took the top sheet. The curious thing is that I checked out the cache after the first person logged online, and it was not put back in the same way I left it, so I believe that the first person actually did touch the cache, so why didn't he or she sign the paper log? It wasn't in a spot that would be obvious to muggles. And I, too, pondered as to whether or not I should delete the FTF's log online, since he or she did not actually sign the paper log.

[+niraD]

Someone logged online and claimed FTF, and then the second person logged online and said that the first person had not signed the paper log.[...] And I, too, pondered as to whether or not I should delete the FTF's log online, since he or she did not actually sign the paper log.

Normally, I don't worry about verifying signatures, but when it's called to my attention like this, I follow up on it. In this case, I'd probably send email, suggesting that perhaps they logged their find against the wrong cache accidentally. If they didn't do anything, then I'd delete the log myself after a few days.

[Clan Riffster]

I usually go caching with at least one child, sometimes two (both boys, 7 and 3) and like most kids their age, they generate their own Sphere of Chaos (like the Bermuda Triangle, except trains of thought also get lost inside).

Yeah, I know my reply is off topic, but I freekin' love this line!