Jump to content

They lied and didn't find it ?


Recommended Posts

 

Not that there is a regulation, but

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

 

--Logging of All Physical Caches

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

 

.

 

I'm confused. Is the above statement, really all that ambiguous?

I'm new, maybe I've been doing this wrong all along by signing logs of caches I find and by not logging caches that I did not sign.

 

Here is the interpretation that I've seen:

 

Consider that the sentences reads

 

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

 

It does not say:

 

Geocaches can *not* be logged online as Found *unless* the physical log has been signed.

 

That's what many argue that the guideline means, but that's not how it's written. What that means to me is that a cache owner can still allow an online Found it log for someone that hasn't signed the physical log, but it doesn't say that the CO *must* allow an online log for someone that hasn't signed the physical log.

Link to comment

 

Not that there is a regulation, but

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

 

--Logging of All Physical Caches

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

 

.

 

I'm confused. Is the above statement, really all that ambiguous?

I'm new, maybe I've been doing this wrong all along by signing logs of caches I find and by not logging caches that I did not sign.

 

Here is the interpretation that I've seen:

 

Consider that the sentences reads

 

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

 

It does not say:

 

Geocaches can *not* be logged online as Found *unless* the physical log has been signed.

 

That's what many argue that the guideline means, but that's not how it's written. What that means to me is that a cache owner can still allow an online Found it log for someone that hasn't signed the physical log, but it doesn't say that the CO *must* allow an online log for someone that hasn't signed the physical log.

 

Fully agreed, but there is still a point that the cache owner cannot allow any found it.

Link to comment

 

Not that there is a regulation, but

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

 

--Logging of All Physical Caches

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

 

.

 

I'm confused. Is the above statement, really all that ambiguous?

I'm new, maybe I've been doing this wrong all along by signing logs of caches I find and by not logging caches that I did not sign.

 

Here is the interpretation that I've seen:

 

Consider that the sentences reads

 

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

 

It does not say:

 

Geocaches can *not* be logged online as Found *unless* the physical log has been signed.

 

That's what many argue that the guideline means, but that's not how it's written. What that means to me is that a cache owner can still allow an online Found it log for someone that hasn't signed the physical log, but it doesn't say that the CO *must* allow an online log for someone that hasn't signed the physical log.

 

Fully agreed, but there is still a point that the cache owner cannot allow any found it.

 

Sure, and it's "mostly" up to the CO what they will allow. We have seen cases, primarily on virtual caches have been archived when the CO was too liberal on what was allowed.

Link to comment

The log book is in there for a reason: to prove you found the cache.

Welcome to Control Freak 101. :rolleyes:

Logbooks, originally, were devices for folks to share their experiences, not something to be used as proof. This whole game is fundamentally based upon the goodwill of others. Starting your game play on the assumption that everyone else is a liar, and must therefor provide proof is a recipe for failure.

 

But if being a control freak is your thing, by all means, have at it.

The rest of us will giggle at you behind our hands. :lol:

 

Yeah, no doubt. After reading these threads and seeing how much this seems to bother some people, I think from now on I'm just not signing anything physical and logging everything online with just a note. I figure that ought to hack off the purists on both sides. Everybody loses, and I win.

Link to comment
Yeah, no doubt. After reading these threads and seeing how much this seems to bother some people, I think from now on I'm just not signing anything physical and logging everything online with just a note. I figure that ought to hack off the purists on both sides. Everybody loses, and I win.

I did the exact opposite and achieved the same effect. For about 3 years I only signed/stamped the physical log book and didn't enter a log online. You should have seen some of the nastygrams I received! GreySmirk.gif

 

GreySquint.gif

Link to comment

 

Not that there is a regulation, but

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

 

--Logging of All Physical Caches

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

 

.

 

I'm confused. Is the above statement, really all that ambiguous?

I'm new, maybe I've been doing this wrong all along by signing logs of caches I find and by not logging caches that I did not sign.

 

Here is the interpretation that I've seen:

 

Consider that the sentences reads

 

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

 

It does not say:

 

Geocaches can *not* be logged online as Found *unless* the physical log has been signed.

 

That's what many argue that the guideline means, but that's not how it's written. What that means to me is that a cache owner can still allow an online Found it log for someone that hasn't signed the physical log, but it doesn't say that the CO *must* allow an online log for someone that hasn't signed the physical log.

 

Thank you, it really was meant as an honest question.

Link to comment

Well, I tell you what. If you claim a find one of my caches and you didn't sign the log book I'm going to be asking what's up. If you don't response with a reasonable answer I'm going to delete your find.

 

No new rules required. If you want to complain about it, have at it.

 

Now, guess if I'm going to delete your find for not signing the logbook.

Edited by BlueDeuce
Link to comment

Such a horrible thing to require that the physical log be signed before an online Found It to be posted, as set down as a general rule of geocaching.

Not horrible at all. But I appreciate your drama queen exaggeration approach. It does add a certain panache to the debate. :rolleyes: For the logging of caches you and I find, I would say that our moors are practically identical. We are on the same sheet of music with the "must sign to claim" mentality. I just don't apply my rather rigid requirements to other seekers, as controlling other people is not fun for me. :lol:

Link to comment

Here's some "puritanical thought" for the cacher who thinks those that would require log book signing are "control freaks" that are to be '"giggled at" and live in a "sad pathetic world" and act like " 'drama queens":

 

HAVE A NICE DAY! GO OUTSIDE AND HAVE FUN AND HOPE YOU FIND A BUNCH OF GREAT GEOCACHES! DON'T FORGET TO SIGN THE LOGBOOK!! :laughing:

Edited by SixDogTeam
Link to comment

I see the tiny violin orchestra continues to play for this thread as well.

 

The tears of those who fear others with a true sense of what geocaching should be, spatter upon the the floor.

 

Sadness for those who having nothing better to do than to continue a pointless argument.

 

The simple fact is, everyone should respect each other's ideals even if they feal the need throw childish hissy fits over them.

Link to comment

Sadness for those who having nothing better to do than to continue a pointless argument.

If it's pointless, why do you continue? Is this some form of Internet based masochism? :laughing:

 

even if they feal the need throw childish hissy fits over them

You mean hissy fits like this one?

 

Boo hoo! Everybody's not playing the way I want to play

No tears. Only laughter. :rolleyes:

Link to comment

................ If their name is not in the logbook, you may delete the find at your discretion. The rule is to generally delete logs like that, but there may be exceptions. Be forewarned that you may encounter an irate person if you do delete it, who may feel entitled to the smiley for some odd reason..................

 

I don't care how irate they get, if you didn't smudge the log sheet in some way you didn't find it. I will allow exceptions if I need to replace a wet log and they remind me of that, or if they leave a calling card instead of scrawl.

Link to comment

Sadness for those who having nothing better to do than to continue a pointless argument.

If it's pointless, why do you continue? Is this some form of Internet based masochism? :(

 

even if they feal the need throw childish hissy fits over them

You mean hissy fits like this one?

 

Boo hoo! Everybody's not playing the way I want to play

No tears. Only laughter. :(

 

to EvilHorror...lol

 

But on a serious note, the forum is meant to be a discussion. not a "I'm right, you're wrong....wrong, wrong, wrong" fest (the main reason I never get on unless a friend has posted something or someone has posted something specifically about me/a cache of mine (specifically - http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...23&st=250))

 

Either way, I think it is in a cache owner's right to delete a log if the CO knows the final was not found. The typical way of checking is the logbook. There are always exceptions (wet log, etc.) but it is ultimately up to the cache owner. I would personally email the person in question before deleting the log, but that again is the CO's decision.

Link to comment

Well, I suppose if someone doesn't like "control freaks" then they now know whose caches to ignore.

 

Such a horrible thing to require that the physical log be signed before an online Found It to be posted, as set down as a general rule of geocaching.

Only it's not a rule. The general instructions are "when you find a cache you sign the log and if you trade you trade something of equal or greater value than what you took". Nowhere in these instructions does it say if you don't you can't log a find online - or that if you don't the cache owner must delete your online find.

 

The problem is that some people are viewing the online find log as a "score". They say to protect the game, the "rule" must be enforced. After all what good is the score if one cache owner is checking logs and making sure they are signed and another cache owner is allowing anyone to log a find online whether they signed the log or not.

 

You should stop viewing the find log or the count of Found It logs as a score. The online find log is simply a way for cachers to share their experience online. If some found your cache and for some reason was unable to sign the log book, you are being a control freak when you exercise your "right" to delete their log. Certainly, if you suspect the log is bogus (i.e., the logger didn't actually find your cache) you may ask for some proof of the find. A signed logbook can be that proof. If you have a cache with a challenge involved in retrieving the cache or opening the container, then you may consider that as part of finding the cache. I will accept that a cache owner who hides a cache in a tree expects me (or someone in the group I am caching with) to figure out some way to retrieve the cache in order to log a find online. Perhaps it is because of these reasons that the guidelines for logging physical cache are worded the way they are. They clearly allow cache owners to delete found logs when the physical log wasn't signed while prohibiting most other logging requirements that a cache owner may have. ALRs were banned because the community got tired of a few control freaks who created ALRs that were there either to make people look stupid in order get a smiley or to be able to delete logs for silly reasons. If you have a good reason - like the log being bogus, counterfeit, or off-topic - then by all means delete these logs. Otherwise, stop deleting logs just because the guidelines allow it.

Link to comment

 

The problem is that some people are viewing the online find log as a "score".

 

Because it IS a score, everybody knows it, and pretending it's not does not alter reality...And it is NOT a "problem". It's certainly a stat, that cannot be denied, and it's one of the stats we use to gauge our performance or experience or participation level against a standard or other players. It makes it more FUN! :(

Link to comment

 

The problem is that some people are viewing the online find log as a "score".

 

Because it IS a score, everybody knows it, and pretending it's not does not alter reality...And it is NOT a "problem". It's certainly a stat, that cannot be denied, and it's one of the stats we use to gauge our performance or experience or participation level against a standard or other players. It makes it more FUN! :(

 

The person with the most finds has over 47,000 finds. Is that the standard?

 

I don't get how you can compare total finds with other players when other players might not be "running the same race". According to the info on the left side of your post, you joined in 2009. Comparing your find count to someone that has been geocaching since 2003 or earlier is like running a 100 yard dash when your competitor has an 8 second head start.

 

Given the significant disparity around the world in terms of geocache density, using total finds as a metric for "performance and experience". Some geocachers live in areas where there are 1000's of caches within a 10 mile area and new caches become available faster than one can find them all. Others live in areas where there may be 100 or fewer caches within 10 miles, with only a handful of new caches placed a year (last year there was a period of over 6 month when there were only 5-6 new caches placed within 20 miles of where I live). Comparing total finds between people in such disparate environments doesn't make any sense either.

 

Some people work full time and have full time family obligations. Some people are retired, or are young and single and can go out geocaching almost any time. Comparing total finds between two geocachers that have significant differences in the available amount of time to go geocaching doesn't make sense either.

 

There are just two many factors which can contribute to total find counts that make it a meaningful stat.

Link to comment

The log book is in there for a reason: to prove you found the cache.

Welcome to Control Freak 101. :(

Logbooks, originally, were devices for folks to share their experiences, not something to be used as proof. This whole game is fundamentally based upon the goodwill of others. Starting your game play on the assumption that everyone else is a liar, and must therefor provide proof is a recipe for failure.

 

But if being a control freak is your thing, by all means, have at it.

The rest of us will giggle at you behind our hands. :(

 

Very well said Clan! I emphasize: "Logbooks, originally, were devices for folks to share their experiences, not something to be used as proof."

Link to comment

The log book is in there for a reason: to prove you found the cache.

Welcome to Control Freak 101. :(

Logbooks, originally, were devices for folks to share their experiences, not something to be used as proof. This whole game is fundamentally based upon the goodwill of others. Starting your game play on the assumption that everyone else is a liar, and must therefor provide proof is a recipe for failure.

 

But if being a control freak is your thing, by all means, have at it.

The rest of us will giggle at you behind our hands. :(

 

Very well said Clan! I emphasize: "Logbooks, originally, were devices for folks to share their experiences, not something to be used as proof."

 

Can't there be additional reasons for something to exist?

Can't those reasons evolve over time?

How is asking for some evidence that a cacher actual found a particular cache being a control freak?

Link to comment

I don't get how you can compare total finds with other players when other players might not be "running the same race". According to the info on the left side of your post, you joined in 2009. Comparing your find count to someone that has been geocaching since 2003 or earlier is like running a 100 yard dash when your competitor has an 8 second head start.

 

So you're saying the person who started in 2003 and has a higher find count doesn't have more experience?

 

Given the significant disparity around the world in terms of geocache density, using total finds as a metric for "performance and experience". Some geocachers live in areas where there are 1000's of caches within a 10 mile area and new caches become available faster than one can find them all. Others live in areas where there may be 100 or fewer caches within 10 miles, with only a handful of new caches placed a year (last year there was a period of over 6 month when there were only 5-6 new caches placed within 20 miles of where I live). Comparing total finds between people in such disparate environments doesn't make any sense either.

 

Yes, some people don't have as many to find as others. I've never lived among mountains and never climbed one in my life, yet according to your logic, that doesn't mean I'm not as experienced as anyone else. Yes, I think it does. Experience comes with doing something, and while I don't think every cache provides the same experience, the numbers aren't completely meaningless, at least not until you start allowing people to increase their numbers when they didn't actually find anything.

 

Some people work full time and have full time family obligations. Some people are retired, or are young and single and can go out geocaching almost any time. Comparing total finds between two geocachers that have significant differences in the available amount of time to go geocaching doesn't make sense either.

 

No, suggesting that people who don't have time to geocache are just as experienced as those who do have time and do it frequently doesn't make sense. Again, experience comes with doing it.

Link to comment
No, suggesting that people who don't have time to geocache are just as experienced as those who do have time and do it frequently doesn't make sense. Again, experience comes with doing it.
That is only true to a point. After all, this game is not rocket science. A person with a couple hundred finds is certainly experienced. It matters not that someone else has found tens of thousands of them.
Link to comment

Some people work full time and have full time family obligations. Some people are retired, or are young and single and can go out geocaching almost any time. Comparing total finds between two geocachers that have significant differences in the available amount of time to go geocaching doesn't make sense either.

 

There are just two many factors which can contribute to total find counts that make it a meaningful stat.

 

Abso-freakin'-lutely! *slow clap*

 

 

Experience comes with doing something WELL... not just with doing something. Practice doesn't make "perfect"... it makes "permanent."

 

Just because someone has 47,000 finds doesn't make them some kind of geocaching deity unless that's what's important to YOU. I'm deeply respectful of people who do 10 miles hikes through difficult terrain to reach their one cache find for the weekend because that's all the time they get to cache during the work week. If someone only has 50 finds to their name since 2004, but every find evokes a sense of "wow, that's hardcore," I'm willing to give respect where respect is due! THAT is experience to me.

Link to comment

 

Experience comes with doing something WELL... not just with doing something. Practice doesn't make "perfect"... it makes "permanent."

 

 

A co-worker once made a reference to a mutual acquaintance of ours: "She doesn't really have 10 years experience, she just has one year of experience repeated 10 times."

 

If you go out to a certain power trail out in the desert, you can find a thousand identical caches in a day or two. Does that make you ten times as experienced as a person with 100 finds made in a more traditional setting?

Link to comment

"She doesn't really have 10 years experience, she just has one year of experience repeated 10 times."

 

I love that quote, and I'll probably be using it from now on! Thank you.

 

Ask yourself the question, if the online logging and number counts went away tomorrow, would I still cache? If the answer is "yes," then you probably don't care about other people's stats or whether or not they "cheat."

 

If your blood-pressure is going up and you're getting all upset about someone you've never met (and probably won't ever meet) "cheating" at geocaching, perhaps you've missed the point of geocaching.

 

If you're the one who "cheats" (whatever your personal definition of 'cheating' is), maybe this isn't the game for you. Your supposed to feel inspired by difficult caches to achieve something greater than you have before- therefore giving yourself a measure of accomplishment.

Link to comment

I see people on here talking about the numbers not mattering and I agree to a point, but I love a lot of the generated stats much more than the total find count. Everyone has multiple reasons for participating in this great game. Some sort of numbers are just as valid as any of them. I constantly see on here where people berate others for questioning logging practices and saying that "everyone plays the game their way" out of one side of their mouth, while questioning those who care about the numbers (their way to play) out of the other side. The numbers are more for competition and bragging rights among your circle of friends, which can be a lot of fun. I will finish with this. If the little number by your username wasn't a big deal for many, why are virtuals so popular on geocaching.com and not on Waymarking?

Link to comment

It's certainly a stat, that cannot be denied, and it's one of the stats we use to gauge our performance or experience or participation level against a standard or other players. It makes it more FUN! :(

The find count is a stat. It is the sum of the number of online "Found It", "Attended", and "Photo Taken" logs a person has entered. As such it is an estimate of the number of caches a person found. I use the word estimate because some people don't log every cache they find, and of course some people may log a find online in instances that not everyone feels deserves a find. You can use the find count to compare yourself against other players but the statistic has limited usefulness. Not only is it only and estimate of the number of finds, but not every cache is the same; so it's hard to compare a find of an LPC to a find that required a hike of several miles to get. In particular, it doesn't measure how much FUN you are having. It certainly can add to the fun for some individuals to see how many caches they find in a day or in a year and the find count can be an estimate that allows these people to see how this compares with other cachers. But I have to feel sorry for those who feel the find count is a score as in "who ever has the highest score wins". This is not a zero sum game. We can all be having fun finding caches whether we find one cache or one hundred. And, I believe, we would have more fun if there was less concern over whether someone logged a find online without meeting someone else's personal rule for logging. A truly bogus log can conceivably harm another cacher, in that it may provide false information about the state of the cache. These logs should be deleted. And I'm will to allow cache owners who have intentionally placed caches where there is a challenge to retrieve the container or get it opened, to delete online finds where the log isn't signed as a way to encourage cachers to complete the challenge. But for most caches I just find it silly to worry about whether someone signed the log or not.

Link to comment

How is asking for some evidence that a cacher actual found a particular cache being a control freak?

Because it's entirely unnecessary. This game is utterly dependent upon the goodwill of others. I've got 50 or 60 ammo cans out in the wilds, and I've posted exactly where they are, on a public website. I did this because I trust in the goodwill of other players. To take this even farther, when I look at your profile, it tells me that you are from the Valley Forge, PA. area. Should I demand proof of this? Of course not. That would be silly. If you tell me you are from Valley Forge, I'm going to believe you. By the same token, if you tell me you found my Etch-o-Sketch cache, I'm going to believe you.

Link to comment
That is only true to a point. After all, this game is not rocket science. A person with a couple hundred finds is certainly experienced. It matters not that someone else has found tens of thousands of them.

 

The person with tens of thousands of them is definitely more experienced, even if they're not more skilled. The person with tens of thousands of finds will be more likely to have encountered certain rare situations.

 

But I'll repeat that I'm not one who really cares much about numbers. I'm more concerned with the thought that I go through the trouble of earning my name on a cache's online log and someone else can do the same without even finding the cache. That applies most greatly, but not strictly, to the harder caches. Even if it's just lifting a lamp skirt, they should have to lift it and earn that log or the cache owner should delete it. I'm planning a trip soon to get a pretty difficult one and having my name on it is my prize. It detracts from it thinking that anyone could log it whether they find it or not. (I don't know if the cache owner is a "cache nazi" or not.)

Link to comment
That is only true to a point. After all, this game is not rocket science. A person with a couple hundred finds is certainly experienced. It matters not that someone else has found tens of thousands of them.

 

The person with tens of thousands of them is definitely more experienced, even if they're not more skilled. The person with tens of thousands of finds will be more likely to have encountered certain rare situations.

 

I think you're missing the point here. A person with tens of thousands of finds that lives in a very cache rich area may *not* have more experience then someone that has "merely" thousands of finds and lives in an area with relatively few caches. The latter has to travel much further to finds caches, will likely encounter different hide styles from many different cachers, and experience a greater variety of terrain.

 

I was looking at the log on a particular cache a few weeks ago and noticed that the finder had 1100 or so finds whereas I have 1034. Does that mean that other cacher has more experience and greater skills than I do? It taken me almost four years to get as many finds as I have and that includes a couple dozen virtual caches, a dozen or so Earth caches, and almost 100 puzzle caches. I've found caches covered by a foot of snow, found caches in desert areas, everything from a nano to super size ammo box hid deep in the woods. I have found caches in 21 states, 11 countries, and on four continents. Almost all of mine finds were done solo.

 

That cacher with 1100 finds. They had created an account about four week ago and spent 2-3 days on a power trail finding 1100 nearly identical hides with a group of people and probably didn't even get out of the car for a lot of them.

Link to comment

How excellent. A pointless arguement and lots of name calling over the rules of a game which doesn't really have rules. Isn't the internet wonderful.

 

How the game is played varies from person to person, and cache to cache. Some want to drag otherwise unwilling people into beautiful places, others want to set puzzles, but what is happening here is that someone who wants to bag as many as possible, is meeting someone who wants a cache to be a real challenge. to the challenger, anyone who doesn't overcome it is cheating, and to the bagger a challenge is a frustration. Neither is wrong, but both people are going to cause each other annoyance as they assert their own rules.

 

My 2 cents is that a cache owner should be able to add any special rules that they like, after all, they own the cache, and put the effort into creating it. Everyone has their reasons for creating a cache and if that reason is to set a challenge to others, then those others should respect that, and complete the challenge. Geocaching.com is purely a place for them to advertise and log the challenge that they've set - not the definer of their rules.

 

In this instance, signing the log is a necessary proof that the challenge has been met. It does not mean that all logs in all caches must be signed and checked - I've skipped a few due to lack of pen, space in the log, dampness etc, however they were all cache'n'dashes where no-one really cares about a signed log. When I visit a 5/5 with a mostly empty book, then you can be sure I'll sign it properly as proof. If you are the third visitor in 2 years to a challenge cache, then you can only expect that the owner demand proof.

Link to comment

My 2 cents is that a cache owner should be able to add any special rules that they like, after all, they own the cache, and put the effort into creating it. Everyone has their reasons for creating a cache and if that reason is to set a challenge to others, then those others should respect that, and complete the challenge. Geocaching.com is purely a place for them to advertise and log the challenge that they've set - not the definer of their rules.

Once upon a time this was the case. Cache owers could set what ever requirements they wanted for you to be able to log their cache online. But some people complained. "The cache owner says I have to post a picture of my pet, but I don't have a pet. I went and found the cache since the coordinates were in my GPS, but now I can't log the the find.".

 

So the powers that be wrote a guideline. "Caches with additional logging requirement must be listed as unknown type caches." Then people would read these requirements before looking for the cache and could decide if they could meet the requirements or not."

 

But now people said, if I can make up the rules for logging my cache I can rules like "In order to log a find you must hide a lamppost cache" or "In order to log a find post a picture of yourself nude at the cache site". Of course these requirements were deemed inappropriate and the reviewers told not to publish caches with these sorts of requirements. But whatever rules were for cache owner rules, people had a tendency to try and push the envelope. The reviewers could not keep up with deciding which rules were OK to have and which weren't.

 

So the powers that be changed the guideline. Cache onwers could not have additional requirements for logging finds online. They could make optional request, but they could not delete logs if someone didn't abide by the request. The guidelines was made retroactive to apply to existing caches. Finders were told "Geocaches can be logged online as Found once the physical log has been signed."

 

Some people read this new guideline to mean that the physical log must be signed. Of course that is not what it says. However, it does allow cache owners to delete find logs if the physical log is not signed.

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment

...

My 2 cents is that a cache owner should be able to add any special rules that they like, after all, they own the cache, and put the effort into creating it. Everyone has their reasons for creating a cache and if that reason is to set a challenge to others, then those others should respect that, and complete the challenge. Geocaching.com is purely a place for them to advertise and log the challenge that they've set - not the definer of their rules .....

The cache owner owns the cache. However, by choosing to list the cache on Geocaching.com, the cache owner voluntarily agrees to abide by the Cache Listing Guidelines/Requirements set on the Geocaching.com website.

 

If the cache owner wants to "add any special rules", they can simply choose not to list their cache on the Geocaching.com website. The choice is there.

Link to comment

 

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

 

Some people read this new guideline to mean that the physical log must be signed. Of course that is not what it says.

 

Of course that IS what it says. Words have meanings. Nouns and verbs. Pretty simple.

That isn't what it says. It very clearly states that caches can be logged online once the physical log has been signed, but stays quite as to whether online logs are acceptable if the physical log has not been signed. TPTB leave that determination up to the individual cache owners.

 

I think the thing that is causing your confusion is an error that Toz made. He stated that 'finders were told' that caches could be logged once teh physical log was signed when these guidelines are actually for hiders, not finders. The guideline is actually instructing hiders as to when they must allow online finds to stand, not instructing finders as to when they are allowed to submit an online 'find' log.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

 

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

 

Some people read this new guideline to mean that the physical log must be signed. Of course that is not what it says.

 

Of course that IS what it says. Words have meanings. Nouns and verbs. Pretty simple.

 

Most people will interpret that to be the same as saying

Geocaches can be logged online as Found if and only if the physical log has been signed.

 

Logically (or literal) minded people will read it as saying:

If the physical log has been signed, then the geocache can be logged online as Found. (If the physical log has not been signed, then this guideline does not apply.)

 

Lawyers will interpret this to mean anything you want, for $400 an hour plus expenses.

Edited by kpanko
Link to comment

 

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

 

Some people read this new guideline to mean that the physical log must be signed. Of course that is not what it says.

 

Of course that IS what it says. Words have meanings. Nouns and verbs. Pretty simple.

 

Most people will interpret that to be the same as saying

Geocaches can be logged online as Found if and only if the physical log has been signed.

 

Logically (or literal) minded people will read it as saying:

If the physical log has been signed, then the geocache can be logged online as Found. (If the physical log has not been signed, then this guideline does not apply.)

 

...and then there are those of us that after having it beaten into their heads have finally noticed that the quoted portion of the guidelines:

 

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

 

...comes from the cache hiding guidelines, not the finding guidelines and that you have to take it in the context (speaking to the HIDER) that it was intended.

 

But feel free to audit your physical logs and delete those bogus finds, cause the guidelines cover you there too.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...