Jump to content

Smileys with DNF messages


ocklawahaboy
Followers 1

Recommended Posts

I've been doing some paperless caching lately and one thing I check before heading to a cache is whether or not it's been found recently. In doing so, I've noticed several instances where a cacher has marked a find and then stated in the log that they were unsuccessful. Just wondering what you would do in that instance. I know that it's really no skin off anyone else's nose if someones stats are inflated but it's a little misleading to the CO if they just read the subject of the email notification and see that cacher xyz found cache 123 and don't read that they really didn't. It's also potentially confusing to those of us who are trying to use that to decide whether we are going to head off on that jeep trail after that cache or not. Should I contact the CO? Should I contact the cacher, who may have just made an honest mistake?

Just curious what everyone thinks.

Link to comment

Did you read the entire log? I've seen several that start like a DNF log but when you get deeper in it says they came back at the end of the day or something similar and found it. Only one or two that looked like did not find all the way to the end. For myself, I wouldn't worry about either way. If I find logs like that on a cache I own I'll check the physical log and if it's not signed I would probably contact the person who logged it first in case it was an honest mistake, then delete the log if needed. Ultimately though, it's between the searcher and the cache owner.

Link to comment

If I happen to notice a log by a cacher I know and the log seems to be contradictory I may email the cacher and ask if they made a slip of the mouse when logging. Other than that I certainly do not review logs for this. Don't remember ever contacting a CO regarding a log that seems incorrect.

Link to comment

Good question. I stumbled upon one of these not too long ago. At the time I was baffled by the log entry. If I remember correctly it was something like, "Searched really hard for it, couldn't find it. But can we still log this as a found?" (And that was a found log.)

 

I didn't do anything about it. Should I have? :/

Link to comment

Good question. I stumbled upon one of these not too long ago. At the time I was baffled by the log entry. If I remember correctly it was something like, "Searched really hard for it, couldn't find it. But can we still log this as a found?" (And that was a found log.)

 

I didn't do anything about it. Should I have? :/

Not unless it was your cache.

Link to comment

Good question. I stumbled upon one of these not too long ago. At the time I was baffled by the log entry. If I remember correctly it was something like, "Searched really hard for it, couldn't find it. But can we still log this as a found?" (And that was a found log.)

 

I didn't do anything about it. Should I have? :/

Not unless it was your cache.

 

It wasn't. Thanks for the tip.

Link to comment

I know of one cache up near my summer home in the out of the way area of North Eastern Pennsylvania. I canoed about a third of a mile upriver to find nothing. Then worst of all, I come home to discover that the person before me "found" it without discovering the container. Well I discovered a good place for a cache, so I guess I can log the nearest cache right. WRONG! And now the CO hasn't responded to anything and the cache still hasn't been updated. :angry::angry::angry::angry::angry::angry: Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

Link to comment

I know of one cache up near my summer home in the out of the way area of North Eastern Pennsylvania. I canoed about a third of a mile upriver to find nothing. Then worst of all, I come home to discover that the person before me "found" it without discovering the container. Well I discovered a good place for a cache, so I guess I can log the nearest cache right. WRONG! And now the CO hasn't responded to anything and the cache still hasn't been updated. :angry::angry::angry::angry::angry::angry: Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

It is indeed annoying that the CO has not responded. Beyond that why are you angry? You really do not know you found the correct location. Why would a cache in the area you describe go missing?

Link to comment
Should I contact the cacher, who may have just made an honest mistake?
In the case you mentioned, unsure if a cache has actually been found before you go four-wheeling into the wilderness, you certainly could contact the cacher and ask if they actually found it. They may not offer a very specific answer, though. :unsure:

 

There are a couple of smileys on a cache I own, where the cachers definitely didn't find the container (although they kinda thought they found part of it). But they were all over the correct spot, it's probably frustrating, and maybe it's just plain boring for people to return to the place and hunt some more. As long as there's not a huge problem with lots of phony logs, I intend to not worry about it.

Edited by kunarion
Link to comment

Did you read the entire log? I've seen several that start like a DNF log but when you get deeper in it says they came back at the end of the day or something similar and found it. Only one or two that looked like did not find all the way to the end. For myself, I wouldn't worry about either way. If I find logs like that on a cache I own I'll check the physical log and if it's not signed I would probably contact the person who logged it first in case it was an honest mistake, then delete the log if needed. Ultimately though, it's between the searcher and the cache owner.

Here's a couple of the logs that had smileys.

"I allways log my DNF's.

Here's another one.

Thanks!"

and

"No love here for our happy campers.

Thanks!"

Seeing as no one really thinks it's a big deal then I won't worry about it. I just didn't know what standard protocol was on that.

Thanks

Link to comment

Did you read the entire log? I've seen several that start like a DNF log but when you get deeper in it says they came back at the end of the day or something similar and found it. Only one or two that looked like did not find all the way to the end. For myself, I wouldn't worry about either way. If I find logs like that on a cache I own I'll check the physical log and if it's not signed I would probably contact the person who logged it first in case it was an honest mistake, then delete the log if needed. Ultimately though, it's between the searcher and the cache owner.

Here's a couple of the logs that had smileys.

"I allways log my DNF's.

Here's another one.

Thanks!"

and

"No love here for our happy campers.

Thanks!"

Seeing as no one really thinks it's a big deal then I won't worry about it. I just didn't know what standard protocol was on that.

Thanks

It could have been a slip of the mouse, as someone else noted. It happened to me just a couple days ago, and I didn't notice until I visited my profile page and saw the smiley that should have been a frowny (so I edited the log). Personally, I'd appreciate having the mistaken log pointed out so I could fix it, but realize others may feel differently, be logging the find on purpose, or not want to get involved.

Link to comment

I think the problem is due to the Waymarking site being so hard to use. Since people can't seem to figure out how to use it to share interesting places with others or to log their visits to the interesting place and thank the waymark owner for sharing it, both people who want to share interesting sites and people who enjoy visiting interesting sites use Geocaching.com for this. Got a cool place you would like someone to visit - just chuck a cache nearby and people will come. If it's a really cool spot it will probably be on someone's favorite list as well. Just goes to show that actually finding a cache is just a technicality. The point is to share interesting places, isn't it? So what if you can't find the cache; if you enjoyed the location since that was what the cache owner intended, log the find. The owner will be happy that someone visited (which wouldn't have happened if it was a Waymark), so they'll let the find stand. If only they would bring back virtual caches people would be able to share interesting location and not have to maintain a cache for the puritans to find. :ph34r:<_<

Link to comment
Just goes to show that actually finding a cache is just a technicality. The point is to share interesting places, isn't it? So what if you can't find the cache; if you enjoyed the location since that was what the cache owner intended, log the find.

You're right. For Geocaching purposes, it boils down to: If there's no signature, there's no smiley.

 

But I'm not quite sure what to do with bad smileys on my cache, which I'd admit has a vague enough cache description to make some people not know if they've found the container (there's an occasional bottlecap or other trash around the picnic table). If I delete the incorrect Found Its, I'm deleting DNFs (well they look like finds, but they're actually not). After those logs are gone, I don't expect to ever see a back-dated DNF added. Now I'll have just a day of "no activity at the cache", due to log removal by myself. But I want to promote accurate logs. So the bad smileys have got to go, I've gotta just face it.

 

Here I've done a complete 180 from not worrying about it, to cleaning up the log spic-and-span like Mary Poppins. No, wait. More like Mr. Clean. Yeah, that's it. But more masculine.

Edited by kunarion
Link to comment

I have only deleted one found it log out of over 4000. It was written in German, the cacher had found 20 caches that day in Germany, and my cache was on a five mile hike, with the trail head 45 miles away from LAX.

 

I'm pretty lenient, as far as this goes, but If a cacher writes that they did not find one of my caches, but says they are going to claim it as a found anyway, I'll communicate with them, as much as they will allow. If they don't take the proper course of action, I will.

 

Keep in mind, I only have two urban caches, and I can see one of them as I'm writing this. The rest are in the mountains and I'll never get a "Found Velcro", or "Found Magnet". I usually get "Giant ants are guarding your cache". In that case, they can log it online, even if they didn't get to sign the actual log.

Link to comment

I actually accidentally logged a DNF as a Find once. The text of my log clearly said that I didn't find it, but I accidentally hit the "Found It" button. The CO let me know about really quick, and I changed it.

 

Several months ago, I got a rather rude email from a cacher. It was asking me why I had not yet checked on or disabled one of my caches. It was a multi with a nice hike. Not real long, but it was about a mile, and there were more caches along the way. So I looked at the logs on my cache, and the last log was a "Found It" log that was several months old. Looked like they enjoyed the cache. Then I looked at the other caches around mine. Since mine was last found, three different cachers/caching groups found all the caches around mine, but didn't find or DNF mine. Hmmmmm....maybe I would have checked on that cache had I known there was a problem with it.

Link to comment
I know of one cache up near my summer home in the out of the way area of North Eastern Pennsylvania. I canoed about a third of a mile upriver to find nothing. Then worst of all, I come home to discover that the person before me "found" it without discovering the container. Well I discovered a good place for a cache, so I guess I can log the nearest cache right. WRONG! And now the CO hasn't responded to anything and the cache still hasn't been updated. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

 

Still haven't figured how to quote previous posts (maybe someone will tell me) but had to respond to this. Recently did a 5 mile round trip hike to a cache that had some DNF's but the last one was a found. Didn't read them just looked at the recent log box in GSAK. Got to the area which is a wide open hilltop with a rock pile in the middle and nothing there. I then checked the logs and the found was one of those I got here and there is no container but i logged it anyhow. A quick NA log with the comment that the CO had now converted to a virtual resulted in immediate archival by the reviewer. Once again I propose that NM and NA logs serve a valuable purpose.

 

On the cache mentioned above I would do a NA.

 

I am sure someone will say I should have NM'd it and waited a year but the CO had already received multiple DNF's and allowed a DNF to be a Found. It's not like he doesn't know there is a problem that needs to be dealt with.

Link to comment
Just goes to show that actually finding a cache is just a technicality. The point is to share interesting places, isn't it? So what if you can't find the cache; if you enjoyed the location since that was what the cache owner intended, log the find.

You're right. For Geocaching purposes, it boils down to: If there's no signature, there's no smiley.

Did you really want to respond to my post with that statement?

 

You are free to say that for kunarion's purposes it boils down to no signature, no smiley. But as far a Geoaching.com is concerned, if the cache owner doesn't want to delete the found log, it's perfectly legitimate.

 

Now I see where the reviewers may archive a cache if a cache owner has basically turned a traditional cache into a virtual by saying there is no need to find the container. The guidelines state that for all physical caches there must be a logbook, scroll or other type of log for geocachers to record their visit. So if there isn't an option to sign the log, the cache listing doesn't meet the guidelines, and the cache should be archived. However, if the cache owner simply allows finds that say "Didn't find the container, but am logging a find anyhow", I don't believe that archiving would be justified.

Link to comment

Good question. I stumbled upon one of these not too long ago. At the time I was baffled by the log entry. If I remember correctly it was something like, "Searched really hard for it, couldn't find it. But can we still log this as a found?" (And that was a found log.)

 

I didn't do anything about it. Should I have? :/

Not unless it was your cache.

 

See above.

If it's not your cache, then you have no concern in the matter.

The owner will do the needful. ;)

Link to comment

I think the problem is due to the Waymarking site being so hard to use. Since people can't seem to figure out how to use it to share interesting places with others or to log their visits to the interesting place and thank the waymark owner for sharing it, both people who want to share interesting sites and people who enjoy visiting interesting sites use Geocaching.com for this. Got a cool place you would like someone to visit - just chuck a cache nearby and people will come. If it's a really cool spot it will probably be on someone's favorite list as well. Just goes to show that actually finding a cache is just a technicality. The point is to share interesting places, isn't it? So what if you can't find the cache; if you enjoyed the location since that was what the cache owner intended, log the find. The owner will be happy that someone visited (which wouldn't have happened if it was a Waymark), so they'll let the find stand. If only they would bring back virtual caches people would be able to share interesting location and not have to maintain a cache for the puritans to find.

 

I appreciate your dig at the traditionalists who use geocaching to bring them to special places, as opposed to those who use it as a competitive venture where racking up numbers is the goal.

 

Maybe the numbers people shouldn't have to find caches either. You arrived at ground zero, finding the cache is a technicality

 

Let's dispense with the concept of the cache totally. We should be able to log a find if we get within 50 feet of the coordinates. The numbers people will be really happy because they don't even have to get out of their cars most of the time. Imagine the numbers they can rack up. And those of use who enjoy the cool places that geocaching brings us will still be brought there but don't have to worry about that finding the cache silliness.

Link to comment

 

Let's dispense with the concept of the cache totally. We should be able to log a find if we get within 50 feet of the coordinates. The numbers people will be really happy because they don't even have to get out of their cars most of the time. Imagine the numbers they can rack up. And those of use who enjoy the cool places that geocaching brings us will still be brought there but don't have to worry about that finding the cache silliness.

 

I think you just re-invented Waymarking.

Link to comment

I have had a slip of the mouse and selected FOUND and yet my log clearly shows that I did not find it. It was several days before I noticed my mistake. I would have appreciated an email to let me know I had "messed up." I personally want my statistics to be correct.

 

It has happened to me a couple of times, once last week as a matter of fact.

 

I prefer an email letting me know and I'll gladly make the fix. Some CO's just delete the entry, not my first choice.

Link to comment

Funny, I was just talking to a couple of friends about this the other day. I'm having this problem with one of my caches, over and over again. People keep logging it as found, and then in the log they say that the cache is clearly missing because they could see where it should have been attached. I check on the cache, and it's still there, time and time again. But whether it's there or not isn't really the point. If they didn't find the actual cache, they clearly didn't sign the log. So their logs go *POOF* with a quick strike of my magical deletion button.

Link to comment

i have marked caches found that i meant to mark DNF...

 

and i have DNF'd caches that i meant to mark as found.

 

i almost always catch it when i see that next screen and i see the wrong smiley, and i swap it on the spot.

 

also, in the field... i'm notorious for signing where i can find a spot in the log book. for instance, this weekend, i found a cache... and signed in between two logs... one was dated in '04 and the other was dated '08. there were plenty of loggers elsewhere in the book, so it wasn't a cache that went unfound for 4 years. i just happened to add my special little jumble to the mix.

Link to comment

I've been doing some paperless caching lately and one thing I check before heading to a cache is whether or not it's been found recently. In doing so, I've noticed several instances where a cacher has marked a find and then stated in the log that they were unsuccessful. Just wondering what you would do in that instance. I know that it's really no skin off anyone else's nose if someones stats are inflated but it's a little misleading to the CO if they just read the subject of the email notification and see that cacher xyz found cache 123 and don't read that they really didn't. It's also potentially confusing to those of us who are trying to use that to decide whether we are going to head off on that jeep trail after that cache or not. Should I contact the CO? Should I contact the cacher, who may have just made an honest mistake?

Just curious what everyone thinks.

 

I've actually found this not unusual for new cachers. A kind note is all that's needed. I've written people a lot, and they've always been embarrassed and grateful for the correction.

 

I've done it myself.

One time I got a really rude note from someone. It was on a day I did 70 caches. The note said, "HOW COULD YOU?" and was quite rude. I said, "Thank you for pointing out my error. I corrected it. But truly how could I NOT make one error after logging 70 caches in one day?"

Link to comment

Just recently I saw a log for a cache on my watchlist. The brand-new cacher logged a find, but clearly stated that he did NOT find the cache. I emailed him, and asked if he meant to log a DNF.

He hasn't changed the log, and I don't think he intends to. I get the impression that he felt since he couldn't find the cache, he deserved a smiley for trying. NOT! :blink::unsure:

Link to comment

There's a difference between "an issue" with a cache and a cache that you didn't find!

Yeah, by an issue I mean it went missing, the cache owner is going to archive it so he feels bad so he let's you find it before he archives it.

 

If a cache owner says "You were looking in the right spot, but it's missing. Go ahead and log a find," I'm still not going to log it as found. Because I didn't, you know, find it.

Link to comment

There's a difference between "an issue" with a cache and a cache that you didn't find!

Yeah, by an issue I mean it went missing, the cache owner is going to archive it so he feels bad so he let's you find it before he archives it.

 

If a cache owner says "You were looking in the right spot, but it's missing. Go ahead and log a find," I'm still not going to log it as found. Because I didn't, you know, find it.

Ah. So you notice that a cache owner can't force you to log a find. Isn't it great. If a cache owner and a seeker agree to allow a find for a missing cache it can be logged as such. But if either one disagrees then the cache is not logged as found. Pretty cool.

 

I would complain more that it also works this way for found caches. As a cache owner I hate it when someone finds my cache but doesn't log it online. And as finder I hate it when I find a cache but the cache owner deletes my log because my pen didn't work or I couldn't get the scroll out of a micro cache.

Link to comment

There's a difference between "an issue" with a cache and a cache that you didn't find!

Yeah, by an issue I mean it went missing, the cache owner is going to archive it so he feels bad so he let's you find it before he archives it.

 

You can still log your find online even on an archived cache. It doesn't happen often, but sometimes a cache is archived, but the container is not retrieved. I found a cache once, not realizing it had been archived. I logged my find as usual.

 

If the cache wasn't there, you didn't really find it, did you?

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...
Followers 1
×
×
  • Create New...