Deleting Logs

[+jellis]

Is this allowed on a cache page? I thought they did away with threats like this.

 

**Please Note**

Any spoiler logs or mention of way points, misleading or notes

hinting at this cache will be promptly deleted without notification.

[+briansnat]

I think posting spoilers is one of the few legit reasons for getting your log deleted. He is just putting in words on the page what is generally understood.

[+buttaskotch]

Generally understood, yes, but sometimes posted anyway

[+narcissa]

Is this allowed on a cache page? I thought they did away with threats like this.

 

**Please Note**

Any spoiler logs or mention of way points, misleading or notes

hinting at this cache will be promptly deleted without notification.

 

Sometimes, with carefully camouflaged hides or other geocaches where the owner has put a great deal of effort into the container, "NO SPOILERS" bears repeating.

[+wimseyguy]

Since spoiler pics cannot be deleted without the log as well I have no problems with what was quoted in the OP.

 

It's nice to send an email request/warning before deleting, but if there isn't a prompt response the deletion is probably warranted.

[+StarBrand]

Since spoiler pics cannot be deleted without the log as well I have no problems with what was quoted in the OP.

 

It's nice to send an email request/warning before deleting, but if there isn't a prompt response the deletion is probably warranted.

+1

[vagabond]

Since spoiler pics cannot be deleted without the log as well I have no problems with what was quoted in the OP.

 

It's nice to send an email request/warning before deleting, but if there isn't a prompt response the deletion is probably warranted.

+1

 

+ 2

[+SixDogTeam]

Not a "threat"

[+ArcherDragoon]

Since spoiler pics cannot be deleted without the log as well I have no problems with what was quoted in the OP.

 

It's nice to send an email request/warning before deleting, but if there isn't a prompt response the deletion is probably warranted.

+1

 

+ 2

 

+3

[+JohnnyVegas]

I have a multi cache that takes cachers too two cemetaries to figure out the location of the cache that is not in a cemetary. One of early finders posted photos of all the clues and all the information needed to find the finalin the log. They this cacher got upset because I deleted the log claiming they had put a lot of work into the photos. Some cachers are just stupidiots.

 

Now I am seeing a trend among some new cachers in Sacramento of posting photos of caches that have been covered in came to make them hard to find. I am adding notes to my caches warning people that I will delete logs with photos of my camoed cache containers. I may piss some cacher off, but I do not cafe it I do

[+BarbarianB]

I was looking for some information about log deletions and saw this thread.

 

Today, I deleted somebody's Found It log on one of my caches that is in a tree.

Their online Found It blatantly said: "Yeah, I am not signing that, but I am still counting it."

 

As far as I am concerned, it has always been understood that in order to claim a Found It on any geocache with a physical container and log, that you should ONLY claim a Found It if you signed the physical log.

The only exceptions being Virtuals, Earthcaches and Web-cams.

 

Some people just don't get it that not all geocaches are for everyone and if you are unable to perform the necessary tasks to get to the geocache, whether it involves crossing a creek, taking a boat out to an island, rapelling down a cliff or climbing a tree, then you should just forget about it and move on to the next cache.

[+addisonbr]

As far as I am concerned, it has always been understood that in order to claim a Found It on any geocache with a physical container and log...

The debates on the various slices of this issue go on for pages and pages. And pages. And pages.

 

But it's generally accepted that as the CO you have the right to delete the online log of someone who did not sign your physical log.

[+Harry Dolphin]

What he said. Especially when the cacher said "I didn't bother to sign the log'.

You cannot, however, require that the cacher climb the tree. That would be an ALR. But, you can require that s/he sign the log.

[+BarbarianB]

Such caches are being published all the time and is not an ALR.

Climbing the tree to sign the log is a requirement if the cache is permanently affixed and cannot be retrieved from ground level.

Thus, such a type of cache, popular in my area, is rated at a 3.5 terrain or higher for just such a reason.

 

Why? Because it was fun as a kid and it's fun now.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Such caches are being published all the time and is not an ALR.

Climbing the tree to sign the log is a requirement if the cache is permanently affixed and cannot be retrieved from ground level.

Thus, such a type of cache, popular in my area, is rated at a 3.5 terrain or higher for just such a reason.

 

Why? Because it was fun as a kid and it's fun now.

 

No. Climbing the tree is an ALR. Signing the log is the requirement. So, now you want to delete log of people who have signed the log??!

[+lil_cav_wings]

Such caches are being published all the time and is not an ALR.

Climbing the tree to sign the log is a requirement if the cache is permanently affixed and cannot be retrieved from ground level.

Thus, such a type of cache, popular in my area, is rated at a 3.5 terrain or higher for just such a reason.

 

Why? Because it was fun as a kid and it's fun now.

 

No. Climbing the tree is an ALR. Signing the log is the requirement. So, now you want to delete log of people who have signed the log??!

 

I think the poster was referencing that their cache is UP in the tree, and you have to climb to get it.

 

What's the difference between this and a cache that requires a trad climb up a rock cliff to get to it? Wouldn't having the necessary skills and gear be an ALR then? Or SCUBA/underwater caches?

[+Ecylram]

I think the poster was referencing that their cache is UP in the tree, and you have to climb to get it.

 

What's the difference between this and a cache that requires a trad climb up a rock cliff to get to it? Wouldn't having the necessary skills and gear be an ALR then? Or SCUBA/underwater caches?

Perhaps if it was put another way...

 

Signing a log is required. How you go about putting yourself in the position to sign it is up to you. (Climbing, jet pack, ladder, cherry picker, growth hormone, etc.)

[+T_M_H]

Such caches are being published all the time and is not an ALR.

Climbing the tree to sign the log is a requirement if the cache is permanently affixed and cannot be retrieved from ground level.

Thus, such a type of cache, popular in my area, is rated at a 3.5 terrain or higher for just such a reason.

 

Why? Because it was fun as a kid and it's fun now.

 

No. Climbing the tree is an ALR. Signing the log is the requirement. So, now you want to delete log of people who have signed the log??!

 

I think the poster was referencing that their cache is UP in the tree, and you have to climb to get it.

 

What's the difference between this and a cache that requires a trad climb up a rock cliff to get to it? Wouldn't having the necessary skills and gear be an ALR then? Or SCUBA/underwater caches?

 

5BizzyBs is in my neck of the woods and I think the controversy revolves around whether the climb is necessary or the signing of the log. If one person goes up the tree and brings it down for the group to sign it then is it a find? Personally I do not care but I won't sign a log that I did not retrieve myself the way the CO intended.

[jholly]

Signing a log is required.

I thought we beat that horse into hamburger.

[+Ecylram]

5BizzyBs is in my neck of the woods and I think the controversy revolves around whether the climb is necessary or the signing of the log. If one person goes up the tree and brings it down for the group to sign it then is it a find? Personally I do not care but I won't sign a log that I did not retrieve myself the way the CO intended.

Thanks for adding the detail, that helps understand the situation. I would agree that the CO can't require every member of the team to climb a tree.

 

I suspect that 5BizzyB has some very interesting caches, though his page has couple of not-for-the-entire family elements it is humorous.

[+BarbarianB]

I really don't give a rat if they didn't climb the tree, just as long as they get their name on the log sheet.

It happens often enough that someone's kid or one lucky guy will do the climbing and sign for the other guy or even an entire group, maybe even bring the log down so they can sign for themselves.

 

Yes, I own quite a few interesting caches, roughly 180+ active ones.

I abhor PnG's even though I own an entire series of them, but I have not hidden one in well over a year since I finished the series at 30 traditional caches and 2 puzzles.

Almost all my cache pages are themed like my Magic 8 Ball and Press Your Luck puzzles.

I have quite a few caches in trees, tunnels and lots of other interesting hiding spots.

 

I guarantee you come caching to my area, you'll have grand ol' time.

[Mr.Yuck]

I really don't give a rat if they didn't climb the tree, just as long as they get their name on the log sheet.

It happens often enough that someone's kid or one lucky guy will do the climbing and sign for the other guy or even an entire group, maybe even bring the log down so they can sign for themselves.

 

Yes, I own quite a few interesting caches, roughly 180+ active ones.

I abhor PnG's even though I own an entire series of them, but I have not hidden one in well over a year since I finished the series at 30 traditional caches and 2 puzzles.

Almost all my cache pages are themed like my Magic 8 Ball and Press Your Luck puzzles.

I have quite a few caches in trees, tunnels and lots of other interesting hiding spots.

 

I guarantee you come caching to my area, you'll have grand ol' time.

 

I'd love to. I'm a little over 2 hours from Ohio, and have cached there. I'm afraid I don't know where $#*tcrik, Ohio is though.

[+BarbarianB]

LOL!

 

$#*tcrik, Ohio is code for Kettering (Dayton), Ohio

[+John in Valley Forge]

Signing a log is required.

I thought we beat that horse into hamburger.

 

No, it is a Zombie Horse. It just keeps getting up.

[Clan Riffster]

Today, I deleted somebody's Found It log on one of my caches that is in a tree.

Not counting bots, I haven't deleted a single log from any of my caches.

That's because I have two entirely contradictory rules regarding logging:

For caches I find: My name must be in the log. No exceptions.

For caches I hide: If what you did at or near ground zero counts as a find in your eyes, I'm OK with that.

I will not try to dissect the definitions of "Found It" that other people have.

[+BarbarianB]

If the cache is a high terrain rated cache, someone should not be able to play I Spy and say they "Found It" because they saw it without signing the physical log per gc.com guidelines stated in the Knowledge Books.

It's absolutely unfair to every previous finder who, by whatever means, got their name on the log sheet, that one single person would get that D/T score for doing NOTHING to get their name on the log.

 

In my book, as long as the physical cache is in optimal condition and the log in signable condition, then no VISUAL find should be claimed by anyone.

That's not how geocaching started and I will not let it happen on my caches.

 

If I did that, then I should just let everybody log finds from home while sitting their fat butts in their lazy chairs in front of the magic light box with moving pictures.

 

Anyway, I shared my story on the subject

Dead horse burger downed, digested and passed.

[Clan Riffster]

It's absolutely unfair...

Pass the salt, please. My dead horse burger is a little bland.

Back on topic (sorta)

Assume I go find a 5/5 that's way up a tree. I hoof my way to ground zero, enjoying the sights along the way. I get there, realize the cache is in the nose bleed section, climb the tree, sign the log, and climb back down, having had a wonderful time, which I relate in my cache log. Then BillyBobNosePicker drives his ATV out to the site, sees the cache, realizes he can't do the climb, and logs a find anyway. How does his experience detract from mine, or the experiences that the other climbers might have had? If the answer is "It doesn't", then I don't really think that what BillyBobNosePicker did was unfair. Everybody has their own rules they follow. This is not a religion, where there is only One Way to do things, or be labeled a Sinner. There are as many ways to play this game as their are players in this game.

 

You and I have (probably) the same definition of "Found It". Get to the cache, open the cache, sign the log, replace the cache. Seems pretty simple, right? But not everyone has that definition. For instance, you've already altered your definition to include situations where the log cannot be signed. That's stepping outside the boundaries of Puritan caching. You go even farther when you suggest that Puritan caching should only apply to those caches with a high D/T rating. But for the most part, I'm with you on what constitutes a find, for me, except that I won't claim a find if the logbook can't be signed due to being wet/moldy/etc. We just disagree on how much we are willing to control other people.

[+narcissa]

It's absolutely unfair to every previous finder who, by whatever means, got their name on the log sheet, that one single person would get that D/T score for doing NOTHING to get their name on the log.

 

 

D/T isn't a score. It's information about a cache. Go ahead and pretend it's a score, but don't expect others to treat it as such.

 

If someone can't reach a cache and claims a find without physically signing the log, that's really between them and the cache owner. It has no impact on your find, whatsoever. Your finds, your logs, your "scores" are completely independent of anybody else's. This isn't a competition or a race. The only value or score in this game is the meaning that you choose to attach to your finds.

 

[+BarbarianB]

It doesn't even have to be just about caches with higher terrains, either.

I've seen it recently on a local challenge cache where someone logged a find without completing even one of the requirements.

 

And, if the finder reported the log to be unsignable due to it being wet, at least then you pretty much know he/she did make it to, touch and open the cache container, lol.

 

It all boils down to, you govern your caches the way you want to and I'll govern my caches the way I want to.

I certainly don't like doing it, but if I feel I am justified in deleting someone's log, then I will do it in a heartbeat, but also make sure the person understands my reasons for doing so in a very nice and informational manner.

 

As far as a score, it would make things more interesting if there was a better stats rating system like Terracaching has, instead of just a plus 1 to your number of finds.

In Terracaching, I might have more finds than Joe Blo, but if he might have a higher ranking because more of his finds might have higher TPS (or D/T) scores than my finds.

I'm not pushing for such a system and certainly not wanting to start an argument about such a system, but I would certainly welcome such a stats rating system.

[+narcissa]

It doesn't even have to be just about caches with higher terrains, either.

I've seen it recently on a local challenge cache where someone logged a find without completing even one of the requirements.

 

And, if the finder reported the log to be unsignable due to it being wet, at least then you pretty much know he/she did make it to, touch and open the cache container, lol.

 

It all boils down to, you govern your caches the way you want to and I'll govern my caches the way I want to.

I certainly don't like doing it, but if I feel I am justified in deleting someone's log, then I will do it in a heartbeat, but also make sure the person understands my reasons for doing so in a very nice and informational manner.

 

As far as a score, it would make things more interesting if there was a better stats rating system like Terracaching has, instead of just a plus 1 to your number of finds.

In Terracaching, I might have more finds than Joe Blo, but if he might have a higher ranking because more of his finds might have higher TPS (or D/T) scores than my finds.

I'm not pushing for such a system and certainly not wanting to start an argument about such a system, but I would certainly welcome such a stats rating system.

 

Absolutely, delete logs when you have reason to delete logs... but don't throw a hissy fit because another cache owner doesn't really care if someone only saw the cache and didn't sign the log. It's not your business and it doesn't affect your logs in any way. You are not in competition with every other geocacher.

 

One of the virtues of Geocaching.com is that it *doesn't* assign arbitrary scores or value to cache logs. Geocachers can choose to keep their own stats or track their rankings outside the site, but innocent geocachers like me who mostly just want to keep track of caches found or not found don't have to get involved in other people's imaginary games.

 

Again, difficulty and terrain are not scores. They are not awards. They are information given to help geocachers know what to expect when they approach a cache. You may choose to assign more value to them, but dragging the rest of us into your imaginary scoring scheme is ridiculous.

 

There are plenty of ways that you can incorporate competition into your geocaching if you so choose. There are all sorts of sites that churn out statistics and rank geocachers according to different criteria.

 

A word of advice: if you're playing this game out of some desperation to prove that you're better than somebody else, it's probably the wrong game for you. Go for something that actually has a score, like bowling, or tennis.

[+John in Valley Forge]

It's absolutely unfair to every previous finder who, by whatever means, got their name on the log sheet, that one single person would get that D/T score for doing NOTHING to get their name on the log.

 

 

D/T isn't a score. It's information about a cache. Go ahead and pretend it's a score, but don't expect others to treat it as such.

 

If someone can't reach a cache and claims a find without physically signing the log, that's really between them and the cache owner. It has no impact on your find, whatsoever. Your finds, your logs, your "scores" are completely independent of anybody else's. This isn't a competition or a race. The only value or score in this game is the meaning that you choose to attach to your finds.

 

 

No, it is not a score, it is a rating. Tomatoe, tomato.

 

But there is an inherent difference between a container hidden high in tree and the same container hidden under some leaves at the bottom of the same tree.

 

Allowing someone who just visually locates the high up container to log it as a find diminishes the significance of the finds of those who actually made the climb (or whatever the challenge was).

[+The Caching Coulters]

No, it is not a score, it is a rating. Tomatoe, tomato.

 

But there is an inherent difference between a container hidden high in tree and the same container hidden under some leaves at the bottom of the same tree.

 

Allowing someone who just visually locates the high up container to log it as a find diminishes the significance of the finds of those who actually made the climb (or whatever the challenge was).

 

Diminishes it for who? It didn't change my experience. So that cacher didn't actually get the cache and the CO let the log stay. That tells me a little bit about both of those people.

 

What if I visited a cache that was very well hidden, posted a DNF and got a hint emailed to me from the owner. Would that diminish the significance of your find as well?

[+narcissa]

It's absolutely unfair to every previous finder who, by whatever means, got their name on the log sheet, that one single person would get that D/T score for doing NOTHING to get their name on the log.

 

 

D/T isn't a score. It's information about a cache. Go ahead and pretend it's a score, but don't expect others to treat it as such.

 

If someone can't reach a cache and claims a find without physically signing the log, that's really between them and the cache owner. It has no impact on your find, whatsoever. Your finds, your logs, your "scores" are completely independent of anybody else's. This isn't a competition or a race. The only value or score in this game is the meaning that you choose to attach to your finds.

 

 

No, it is not a score, it is a rating. Tomatoe, tomato.

 

But there is an inherent difference between a container hidden high in tree and the same container hidden under some leaves at the bottom of the same tree.

 

Allowing someone who just visually locates the high up container to log it as a find diminishes the significance of the finds of those who actually made the climb (or whatever the challenge was).

 

The difference between tomatoe and tomato is that one of them is incorrect. Treating the D/T rating as a universal award or a competitive scoring system is incorrect. It's fine to do so on an individual basis, but you can't apply that sort of side game to other geocachers unless they choose to compete with you.

 

A found log has the value that you attach to it. If you choose to compete with other geocachers who aren't trying to compete with you, you will quickly find yourself frustrated. A find on a 4/4 cache isn't more valuable than a find on a 1/1 cache unless you attach that value yourself. And it's fine to do so. It's just foolish to assume that others attach the same value.

 

If the owner of the cache in the tree thinks it's okay for someone to take a picture and log the cache because they couldn't climb the tree, that's their choice. Your find is not affected. The experience you had does not change. Feeling that your find is diminished by somebody else's is an irrational response.

[+BarbarianB]

D/T is a score if you are trying to fill in your 81 grid.

I'd like to one day have mine filled in, but I'm not going out of my way to do it.

 

I would welcome a different rating system that wasn't based on number of finds, which is warped, due people logging multiple attend logs on event caches because they are claiming the temporary unpublished caches or even logging additional Found It logs on caches because they revisited them for one reason or another.

But that's their choice if they do that

 

It would be completely up to each individual whether or not they wanted to pay attention to such statistics.

 

I'm not competing with everybody else out there, but it's kind of cool to at least see where one's rankings stand in the overall grand scheme of things.

[jd-mitchell]

ok, call me a little slow, but what is an ALR?

[+addisonbr]

ok, call me a little slow, but what is an ALR?

Additional Logging Requirement. A condition that the CO places on a cache that says that you can't log the find online unless you do something beyond just signing the log - you might have to take a photo wearing a funny hat in the cache, or write your log in a certain style, and so on.

 

They are not allowed any longer. The one exception is for challenge caches - where you are required to complete a geocaching-related task to claim a find online. Even if you find the container itself and sign it, you typically aren't allowed to claim the find online unless you've (for example) filled in your D/T grid, found a certain number of caches in a certain amount of time, found one cache in each county in a particular state, etc.

[+narcissa]

D/T is a score if you are trying to fill in your 81 grid.

I'd like to one day have mine filled in, but I'm not going out of my way to do it.

 

I would welcome a different rating system that wasn't based on number of finds, which is warped, due people logging multiple attend logs on event caches because they are claiming the temporary unpublished caches or even logging additional Found It logs on caches because they revisited them for one reason or another.

But that's their choice if they do that

 

It would be completely up to each individual whether or not they wanted to pay attention to such statistics.

 

I'm not competing with everybody else out there, but it's kind of cool to at least see where one's rankings stand in the overall grand scheme of things.

 

The operative word being "if." Many of us don't care about a "matrix" and don't want to be dragged into a game that we aren't playing. It's fine for you to pretend that D/T is a score as long as you don't inflict that interpretation on the rest of us.

 

Geocaching.com doesn't rank players at all. Other sites use data from here to do so.

 

If you want a ranking that meets your highly personal criteria for attributing value to found logs, create a site for it as others have. Expecting Geocaching.com to impose your subjective scoring system on everybody is a terrible idea.

[jd-mitchell]

ok, call me a little slow, but what is an ALR?

Additional Logging Requirement. A condition that the CO places on a cache that says that you can't log the find online unless you do something beyond just signing the log - you might have to take a photo wearing a funny hat in the cache, or write your log in a certain style, and so on.

 

They are not allowed any longer. The one exception is for challenge caches - where you are required to complete a geocaching-related task to claim a find online. Even if you find the container itself and sign it, you typically aren't allowed to claim the find online unless you've (for example) filled in your D/T grid, found a certain number of caches in a certain amount of time, found one cache in each county in a particular state, etc.

Thanks. I knew I should know what it was.

[Clan Riffster]

I certainly don't like doing it, but...

Then don't. Everything else is simple justification for boorish behavior.

 

Allowing someone who just visually locates the high up container to log it as a find diminishes the significance of the finds of those who made the climb.

Uh... Not sure how that works. Remember the hypothetical 5/5 I mentioned earlier? It wasn't as hypothetical as I implied. I found the cache, in the manner that fits my inner creed, (went there, accessed the cache, put my moniker in the log, dropped in some swag, replaced the cache, went home, typed my digital log), and had a heck of a good time doing it. The guy who logged it after me took shortcuts I would never take, and did not sign the logbook. Yet, he had a good time as well. His experience did not take away from my experience in the slightest. If you wish to promote log deletions for folks who don't play the game the same way you and I do, at least come up with an angle that isn't based on a misconception.

 

D/T is a score if you are trying to fill in your 81 grid.

I think it's closer to a personal accomplishment than a true score. The term "score" implies that you are comparing your results with other people. That doesn't work in this game. My first 5/5 was a P&G at the base of a tree, down a Jeep trail. How anyone could conceivably call that a 5/5 is beyond me, but I was unable to alter the fact that it filled in the block on my own D/T grid. If that was the only 5/5 I did, and you found a real 5/5, how could my "score" be compared to yours?

[+NYPaddleCacher]

D/T is a score if you are trying to fill in your 81 grid.

I'd like to one day have mine filled in, but I'm not going out of my way to do it.

 

I would welcome a different rating system that wasn't based on number of finds, which is warped, due people logging multiple attend logs on event caches because they are claiming the temporary unpublished caches or even logging additional Found It logs on caches because they revisited them for one reason or another.

But that's their choice if they do that

 

It would be completely up to each individual whether or not they wanted to pay attention to such statistics.

 

I'm not competing with everybody else out there, but it's kind of cool to at least see where one's rankings stand in the overall grand scheme of things.

 

Alamogul has found 47557 caches. How does your ranking stand up to that?

 

There are so many different variables that can influence the total number of finds using that metric as some sort of ranking (other than who has the most finds) is rather ludicrous.

 

Someone that has been geocaching since 2003 (or earlier) is probably going to have more finds than someone that didn't start until 2007.

 

Someone that just has more available free time to geocaching is going to have more finds then someone that doesn't.

 

Someone that spends a few days doing power trails could easily find as many caches as someone that has been geocaching several years but has never done a power trail.

 

Some that lives in a cache dense area where there may be thousands of geocaches available withing 10 miles is going to have a lot more opportunities to log a find then someone that lives in a caches sparse area where there may only be a couple hundred ore fewer available caches nearby.

 

I doubt that multiple logs on event caches makes a drop in the bucket is producing very large find counts.

[+KBLAST]

Hey, Bizzy!!! Hey, TeamMidwestHaunters! Check out this forum post if you want to see the beaten horse you brought back:

 

Would this be an ALR?

 

Lots of good stuff. To summarize, this is what I've learned:

 

A. The tree climbing we do in OH is very regional. Most people see "tree climbing" and picture sticking a foot in a knot, reaching up, and grabbing the cache. This is why you'll get a lot of argument here. To them, making everyone climb the tree is akin to "lifting a lightpost skirt and making everyone lift the skirt in the group to find the cache before they can sign it".

 

B. You said this earlier - you don't care if they really climb the tree, as long as their name is on it. That was the final "conclusion" to the post I linked to above. I disagree in principle with some caches (Dozer's Domain being a good example), but Groundspeak doesn't play according to my principles. I think your attitude about the tree climbing is what Groundspeak expects.

 

C. You and I care about the O-High-O Terrain challenge and the Fizzy challenge. We also care about doing it correctly. Not everyone is like us. This nationwide forum has a few who are sympathetic to what we do, but we are not in the majority. If you go around and talk to anyone in Ohio who has cached for a while, they all agree with you and me, so don't worry.

 

D. With C being said - I had to delete 2 found it logs on "The Amazing A" because one of them said they saw the final but didn't want to "die in front of their 3 year old who was with them on the ground" and one because the finder climbed the first tree, said it was fun, and didn't bother to do the rest. Both examples were newbie cachers who NEED to learn the accepted guidelines for Groundspeak. No matter how many people here want to argue (and they will) you have a right and responsibility to delete logs for anyone who has not signed the physical log. The only exception would be someone who has done all the work and the log sheet is too wet, or the cache is missing, etc. I make those exceptions and tell the finders to log their finds.

 

NOW - BACK ON TOPIC:

 

I see that statement all the time - no spoilers - spoilers will be deleted. TOTALLY acceptable. New cachers may not realize that their clever picture showing off the cleverness of the container just made the 4 difficulty cache they spent 2 hours finding a 1 difficulty because there's a freaking picture. Most seasoned cachers won't post spoilers, it's more for those who are new at this... it's to help give them a little more guidance.

 

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in this page are strictly those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Groundspeak or anyone else who matters. The author does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this reply as 86.4% of all statistics are made up on the spot to provide misleading backup to an opinion. Groundspeak does not guarantee the accuracy of this data and accepts no responsibility for any consequence of their use.

Edited November 26, 2010 by KBLAST

[Clan Riffster]

The only exception would be...

You're not going to make it very far in the Puritan ranks when you allow exceptions. Just sayin'.

I guess the exceptions you dream up are OK, but those that others dream up are not. Gotcha.

And this is not the behavior of a control freak?

[+KBLAST]

The only exception would be...

You're not going to make it very far in the Puritan ranks when you allow exceptions. Just sayin'.

I guess the exceptions you dream up are OK, but those that others dream up are not. Gotcha.

And this is not the behavior of a control freak?

 

You are correct... there are lots of exceptions. I was giving examples that have happened to me. I should not have made it seem like that list was all-inclusive. My only point is - people need to have their name on the physical log sheet unless there are extenuating circumstances. I don't believe "I couldn't climb the tree", "I couldn't find the nano", or "I couldn't afford flying to Washington to retrieve the A.P.E. cache" count as extenuating circumstances. If making sure people actually sign the log sheet is being a control freak, I'm cool with being a control freak.

[Clan Riffster]

If making sure people actually sign the log sheet is being a control freak, I'm cool with that

I would say it only reaches control freak levels of silliness when folks start spewing contradictions to justify their behavior. Things like, "Both examples were newbie cachers who NEED to learn the accepted guidelines for Groundspeak. The only exception would be..." Those two statements don't mix very well. If you pretend that the guidelines requires a signature in a logbook in order to claim a find, then you cannot give any exceptions without violating those guidelines you use to enforce your will upon others.

[+Gorak]

When are you folks going to figure out that Geocaching is a game, not a competitive sport?

 

Everyone plays by their own rules, often slightly different than your rules. Everyone has their own idea as to what constitutes an “official” find, an appropriate log entry, a suitable container, a suitable hiding spot, proper etiquette, etc., etc., etc.

 

IMHO, you can be a control freak and try to dictate your rules to others or you can play your own game and not concern yourself with how others play. The former will just create a lot of negativity and eventually spoil the fun for both you and your perceived “offender”. The latter will allow everyone concerned to simply enjoy the game on their own terms.

 

If you are simply the type of person that gets overly annoyed when you see others doing things “wrong”, then I would suggest that it is more your problem than then the other’s. Likewise, if your observation of someone taking liberties with etiquette or “unwritten rules”, as you interpret them, somehow “devalues” your finds/hides/logs/containers/whatever then you’re probably taking this game way too seriously. IMHO, of course.

 

BTW, this post could easily belong in a few different threads currently being debated regarding hides, finds, newbies, etc.

[+Scooter Rider]

Definition of GAME

1

a (1) : activity engaged in for diversion or amusement : play (2) : the equipment for a game b : often derisive or mocking jesting : fun, sport <make game of a nervous player>

2

a : a procedure or strategy for gaining an end : tactic b : an illegal or shady scheme or maneuver : racket

3

a (1) : a physical or mental competition conducted according to rules with the participants in direct opposition to each other (2) : a division of a larger contest (3) : the number of points necessary to win (4) : points scored in certain card games (as in all fours) by a player whose cards count up the highest (5) : the manner of playing in a contest (6) : the set of rules governing a game (7) : a particular aspect or phase of play in a game or sport <a football team's kicking game> b plural : organized athletics c (1) : a field of gainful activity : line <the newspaper game> (2) : any activity undertaken or regarded as a contest involving rivalry, strategy, or struggle <the dating game> <the game of politics>; also : the course or period of such an activity <got into aviation early in the game> (3) : area of expertise : specialty 3 <comedy is not my game>

4

a (1) : animals under pursuit or taken in hunting; especially : wild animals hunted for sport or food (2) : the flesh of game animals b archaic : pluck c : a target or object especially of ridicule or attack —often used in the phrase fair game

— game·like\-līk\ adjective

Examples of GAME

 

1. poker and other gambling games

2. She scored a goal to tie the game.

3. We played a few games of chess.

4. That was a good game!

5. She won the first two games, but lost the set and the match.

6. children playing at their games

7. They are known to play a very rough game.

8. She has a strong all-around game.

9. She needs to improve her game if she wants to win the championship.

10. a football team with a strong running game

 

Origin of GAME

Middle English, from Old English gamen; akin to Old High German gaman amusement

First Known Use: before 12th century

Related to GAME

Synonyms: bout, competition, contest, event, match, matchup, meet, sweepstakes (also sweep-stake), tournament, tourney

Antonyms: earnest

Related Words: athletics, sport; battle, conflict, scrimmage, skirmish, struggle, tug-of-war, tussle; championship, national(s); final, nightcap, play-off, semifinal; derby, field day, gymkhana, open, outing; biathlon, decathlon, heptathlon, pentathlon, triathlon; marathon, race, ultramarathon; heat, round, run, set; rally, volley; round-robin, rubber, runoff, sudden death; dead heat, photo finish, seesaw; classic

Near Antonyms: earnestness, gravity, seriousness, soberness, sobriety, solemnity

see all synonyms and antonyms

[+]more[-]hide

See Synonym Discussion at fun

 

I think you will find this is the most common definition of the word.

Edited November 26, 2010 by Scooter Rider

[+edscott]

I think the poster was referencing that their cache is UP in the tree, and you have to climb to get it.

 

What's the difference between this and a cache that requires a trad climb up a rock cliff to get to it? Wouldn't having the necessary skills and gear be an ALR then? Or SCUBA/underwater caches?

Perhaps if it was put another way...

 

Signing a log is required. How you go about putting yourself in the position to sign it is up to you. (Climbing, jet pack, ladder, cherry picker, growth hormone, etc.)

 

...or probably much more often, someone else throws it down for the rest of the group to sign....

[+baloo&bd]

B. You said this earlier - you don't care if they really climb the tree, as long as their name is on it. That was the final "conclusion" to the post I linked to above. I disagree in principle with some caches (Dozer's Domain being a good example), but Groundspeak doesn't play according to my principles preferences. I think your attitude about the tree climbing is what Groundspeak expects.

 

Just wanted to help out by correcting the post.

 

 

C. You and I care about the O-High-O Terrain challenge and the Fizzy challenge. We also care about doing it correctly our preferred way. Not everyone is like us. This nationwide forum has a few who are sympathetic to what we do, but we are not in the majority. If you go around and talk to anyone in Ohio who has cached for a while, they all agree with you and me, so don't worry.

 

 

You make an implication that someone who does not follow some method you have decided is the "correct" way there finds are somehow less worthy than yours.

 

I occasionally cache with a couple of other cachers. We have found several higher terrain caches, some which I was able to put hands on, some one of the others did. All our names were signed, sometimes by all of use. Sometimes just the person to make the actual grab.

 

Applying you logic, we're doing it the correct way. We are getting out, experiencing the hunt, enjoying new sights and locations and more importantly, socializing with other cachers. As to the validity of the log, even if I mention that another in the group did the climb or signed for the rest of us, I refer you to the other thread. You will find your POV "incorrect".

[+BarbarianB]

Really, it's not much to require that one either signs the log, tosses it down to them or even sign for them, which does happen often enough, but at least their name and/or experience or whatever else they wish to say, is on the physical log.

 

KBlast mentionsed Dozer's Domain in Columbus, Ohio.

I was there on 2 occasions when the log was signed, but I did not ask for my name to be put on it since I did not do any of the climbing on any stage since most of them were WAY beyond what I was even willing to do.

Also, pretty much the same deal with another cache called Peanut's Playground, except I did sign the log, but did not claim a find on it since most of the climbs I witnessed were way beyond my comfort zone and since it was raining that day, I was not going to climb a wet tree.

I could have claimed the find if I wanted to and I don't think anybody would have truly cared a whole lot, but it was my personal choice not to.

 

Everybody can govern their own caches however loosely they they want to.

 

I certainly do expect that if one were to seek my caches, that they should have their name on the log before claiming it as found or at least have a valid reason why they couldn't get their name on the log after the cache container has been opened by them or their caching partner.

[+BarbarianB]

Hey, Bizzy!!! Hey, TeamMidwestHaunters! Check out this forum post if you want to see the beaten horse you brought back:

 

Would this be an ALR?

 

Oh, believe me KBlast, I monitored that discussion once it was brought to my attention by the owner, who I know quite well, of the cache in question.

I DNF'd that cache myself and haven't bothered to go back even though it's just a few miles away.

 

That horse was so beat to death there wasn't anything left to beat.