Jump to content

Fake finds


LingHoney
Followers 1

Recommended Posts

Last week at work I received a "found it" log through my email notifications - although I was not happy to see the 2 dreaded words "LOG WET". Being my only true hidden cache ( I have 1 adopted one also ) I felt impelled to be the idiot who rushes out in the dark, in the rain to retreive my cache to check the problem. I got it in the car to realize that someone had apparently jammed a small hole into the container with the pen point - some of the swag was barely damp but it was in decent shape for sitting most the winter. What stoked me was the BONE DRY log! It was still double bagged and inserted into its own water tight canister safe and sound.

So my question is, why do people get involved with the sport just to be unsportsman like? I thought it was about the thrill of the hunt not the numbers!

I also emailed other cachers who had recently found my cache to enlighten me whether anything was wrong with cache and or contents and everyone of them said the log was completely dry.

I searched the individuals profile and saw more than just my cache that he simply stated "log wet", one cache of which I know has been missing for sometime.

So all i in all I do want to delete his log but do not want to cause conflict.

What to do what to do?

Link to comment

I suggest you simply post an owner maintenance log and state that you checked on the cache and all is well. If you want to you could note you did not see the sig of the "offending" cacher in the nice dry log and that he/she might want to revisit the cache and actually sign.

 

I also suggest you email the "offending" cacher and ask what he/she found since your maintenance visit proved the log was in fine shape. Depending on the response = delete log or not.

Link to comment

I would agree with everything that was said above if you had not have added, "I searched the individuals profile and saw more than just my cache that he simply stated "log wet", one cache of which I know has been missing for sometime."

 

Even without that information if his log prompted me to check on the cache and I didn't see his signature in the bone dry log, that would be enough to get his Find deleted. If he picked the wrong cache to log a legitimate find on from a map then that's his problem, you're supposed to maintain your cache log.

 

But with the information you added, it's obvious he's just armchair logging random caches. Delete it and don't give it another thought.

Link to comment

From what I can see on the other cacher's profile, he does live in your area, so it is unlikely that he is simply armchair logging caches. I hardly think this will ruin the sport, and I don't see what this has to do with not claiming DNFs. It sure sounds to me like a simple case of logging the wrong cache. Have you considered a polite email (breathe deep before writing it)?

Link to comment

I'm a rather obnoxious old-schooler, but I say never delete without an email exchange. Wow, you did a bang-up job on that cache page, good work! An obvious smartphone log, so perhaps he did log the wrong cache. And perhaps "wet log" is stored in the app so he drops that on every cache log in his field notes? A possibility.

Link to comment
I'm a rather obnoxious old-schooler, but I say never delete without an email exchange. Wow, you did a bang-up job on that cache page, good work! An obvious smartphone log, so perhaps he did log the wrong cache. And perhaps "wet log" is stored in the app so he drops that on every cache log in his field notes? A possibility.
I agree.

 

Shoot him an email. Perhaps there is a simple explanation that will resolve everything.

You have to delete the log if his signature wasn't on your logsheet. Forget about conflict avoidance. Just delete it.
Cache owners are not required to delete online logs simply because the logsheet wasn't signed. In these cases, they are given wide lattitude to determine for themselves whether an online 'find' log is appropriate.
Link to comment

Another example of how bogus find logs can inconvenience other cachers. It's not harmless fun as others regularly claim here.

This case is not such a good example of your issue, since the cache did, indeed, require maintenance.

 

Based on the finder's other logs from that day, I would guess that the log on the OP's cache was made completely in error.

Link to comment
An obvious smartphone log ...[snip]... perhaps "wet log" is stored in the app so he drops that on every cache log in his field notes?
I read some of the logs, and this was my impression as well. The offending logs say:
Log is wet! Logged from my phone using the Geocache Navigator by Trimble
I usually like to think the best of people, but sometimes a "Worst Case Scenario" (WCS) pops into my head. After reading those logs, combined with the knowledge that...
someone had apparently jammed a small hole into the container with the pen point
...a WCS popped into my head. It starts with: How do you poke a hole in a container with a pen?? Can't be an accident. From there, combined with a "Wet Log" log on a cache with a dry log, but a compromised container, makes me wonder if the other caches with similar logs now have similar "Pen Holes" made by a serial vandal who is subtly bragging about it in their logs.

 

Again, I really, really, really doubt this is the case, but in these forums I've read of stranger things happening.

Link to comment

After you checked on your cache and the log was dry without the signature from that cacher on the dry log. I would delete the log and maybe a nice note explaining why.

All I see is:

What stoked me was the BONE DRY log! It was still double bagged and inserted into its own water tight canister safe and sound.

 

Again, where does she say that she didn't see his name on the log? If it wasn't then I'd agree, but I don't think we know that... unless I'm missing something.

Link to comment

After you checked on your cache and the log was dry without the signature from that cacher on the dry log. I would delete the log and maybe a nice note explaining why.

All I see is:

What stoked me was the BONE DRY log! It was still double bagged and inserted into its own water tight canister safe and sound.

 

Again, where does she say that she didn't see his name on the log? If it wasn't then I'd agree, but I don't think we know that... unless I'm missing something.

 

She did title the thread "Fake Finds". That leads me to believe that the signature was not there, otherwise the thread would have been something like "Inaccurate logs".

Link to comment

Delete his bogus log and if you want - send a polite email saying that the log was perfectly dry and you didn't see his signature - perhaps it was in error. ;)

Where does she say that she didn't see his signature on the log? Did I miss something?

She said "Fake Find" - not me!!

Link to comment

I also emailed other cachers who had recently found my cache to enlighten me whether anything was wrong with cache and or contents and everyone of them said the log was completely dry.

 

You e-mailed the other cachers but not him? I would send him a note indicating that he logged the wrong cache and allow him to delete it.

Link to comment

After you checked on your cache and the log was dry without the signature from that cacher on the dry log. I would delete the log and maybe a nice note explaining why.

All I see is:

What stoked me was the BONE DRY log! It was still double bagged and inserted into its own water tight canister safe and sound.

 

Again, where does she say that she didn't see his name on the log? If it wasn't then I'd agree, but I don't think we know that... unless I'm missing something.

Well why would she ask to delete his find. I hope it wasn't because he said the log was wet and it wasn't.

 

To the OP.................Did the cacher in question sign the log?

Link to comment
someone had apparently jammed a small hole into the container with the pen point
...a WCS popped into my head. It starts with: How do you poke a hole in a container with a pen?? Can't be an accident. From there, combined with a "Wet Log" log on a cache with a dry log, but a compromised container, makes me wonder if the other caches with similar logs now have similar "Pen Holes" made by a serial vandal who is subtly bragging about it in their logs.

 

Again, I really, really, really doubt this is the case, but in these forums I've read of stranger things happening.

 

It may be sabotage by a foreign militia, as it could be interfering with an espionage program due to a nearby dead drop. Also there is the possibility of it being part of a OTO ritualistic cult practice, or part of a psychological test done by extraterrestrials. But of course, an armchair investigation of a possible armchair logger can never be 100% accurate.. :P

Link to comment

What I noticed is that the cache that the finder logged a find on just previous to this one was the only other recent cache that the finder posted 'wet log' on. This cache was also reported by others to be soaked. Given this info, I think that it's most likely that the 'wet log' log to the OP's cache was made in error. Perhaps he meant to alert the owner to the damaged container issue, but accidently sent the same post as teh previous one.

 

No one will know what really happened if the OP does not ask the question.

Link to comment
You have to delete the log if his signature wasn't on your logsheet. Forget about conflict avoidance. Just delete it.
Cache owners are not required to delete online logs simply because the logsheet wasn't signed. In these cases, they are given wide lattitude to determine for themselves whether an online 'find' log is appropriate.

 

What's your point? She can have all the latitude she wants in the matter. She asked for advice about what she referred to as "fake finds", I gave it. I'm not interested in semantics, or "latitudes."

Link to comment

After you checked on your cache and the log was dry without the signature from that cacher on the dry log. I would delete the log and maybe a nice note explaining why.

All I see is:

What stoked me was the BONE DRY log! It was still double bagged and inserted into its own water tight canister safe and sound.

 

Again, where does she say that she didn't see his name on the log? If it wasn't then I'd agree, but I don't think we know that... unless I'm missing something.

 

She did title the thread "Fake Finds". That leads me to believe that the signature was not there, otherwise the thread would have been something like "Inaccurate logs".

 

You could be right about that... but I just took that to be a bit of anguished hyperbole. Since she physically checked the log to see that it was dry, you'd think that she also would have checked to see if he had signed it, and if not, I would think that she'd have explicitly mentioned it.

 

I'm not trying to nit-pick, by the way, just want to make sure that we don't send out inaccurate advice based on assumptions.

Link to comment

What I noticed is that the cache that the finder logged a find on just previous to this one was the only other recent cache that the finder posted 'wet log' on. This cache was also reported by others to be soaked. Given this info, I think that it's most likely that the 'wet log' log to the OP's cache was made in error. Perhaps he meant to alert the owner to the damaged container issue, but accidently sent the same post as teh previous one.

 

No one will know what really happened if the OP does not ask the question.

 

I searched through about a half dozen "wet logs" of his and cross referenced with recently cache logs that do not mention any maintanance needed. The biggest red flag is how he wet logged a missing cache, that I know for a fact is missing and have reported to be archived after speaking with the cache owner. I do honestly think he has me mixed up with a cache that is located rather near the dadgum seen in the photo. I found that cache over the summer and it was damp then.

Link to comment

After you checked on your cache and the log was dry without the signature from that cacher on the dry log. I would delete the log and maybe a nice note explaining why.

All I see is:

What stoked me was the BONE DRY log! It was still double bagged and inserted into its own water tight canister safe and sound.

 

Again, where does she say that she didn't see his name on the log? If it wasn't then I'd agree, but I don't think we know that... unless I'm missing something.

 

She did title the thread "Fake Finds". That leads me to believe that the signature was not there, otherwise the thread would have been something like "Inaccurate logs".

 

You could be right about that... but I just took that to be a bit of anguished hyperbole. Since she physically checked the log to see that it was dry, you'd think that she also would have checked to see if he had signed it, and if not, I would think that she'd have explicitly mentioned it.

 

I'm not trying to nit-pick, by the way, just want to make sure that we don't send out inaccurate advice based on assumptions.

 

For the record, and maybe I should have not overlooked mentioning this point, but the paper log was NOT signed. I did assume the title was enough explaination. My apologies.

Link to comment

I also emailed other cachers who had recently found my cache to enlighten me whether anything was wrong with cache and or contents and everyone of them said the log was completely dry.

 

You e-mailed the other cachers but not him? I would send him a note indicating that he logged the wrong cache and allow him to delete it.

 

I did email the "wet log" phantom (lol) but have not seen a response yet. And yes, it was courteous. I simply explained my find and that I thought he may have mistaken my cache for another and asked for a description. :)

Link to comment

I'm a rather obnoxious old-schooler, but I say never delete without an email exchange. Wow, you did a bang-up job on that cache page, good work! An obvious smartphone log, so perhaps he did log the wrong cache. And perhaps "wet log" is stored in the app so he drops that on every cache log in his field notes? A possibility.

 

Thanks for the compliment on my page....I'm a bit O.C.D. about things like that lol. I did email, but no answer yet :(

Link to comment
For the record, and maybe I should have not overlooked mentioning this point, but the paper log was NOT signed. I did assume the title was enough explaination. My apologies.

 

Thanks for the clarification on the log not being signed. I would delete the found it log for this cacher.

Edited by the4dirtydogs
Link to comment

What to do what to do?

It's your cache, so ultimately it's your call.

What I would do is post a maintenance completed log, noting that you checked the cache, found that the log was dry, and that the cacher who claimed otherwise did not sign the log. Then I would move on with bigger and better things. Life has enough burdens in store for all of us without adding to that by choices we make. Abide.

Link to comment

What to do what to do?

It's your cache, so ultimately it's your call.

What I would do is post a maintenance completed log, noting that you checked the cache, found that the log was dry, and that the cacher who claimed otherwise did not sign the log. Then I would move on with bigger and better things. Life has enough burdens in store for all of us without adding to that by choices we make. Abide.

Based on the current info available I give this post a hearty +1. Followed up on the log, found the log to be fine and missing a sig. Call it out and be done with it. If the "finder" needs the find let him/her have it and don't worry about it.

Link to comment

After you checked on your cache and the log was dry without the signature from that cacher on the dry log. I would delete the log and maybe a nice note explaining why.

All I see is:

What stoked me was the BONE DRY log! It was still double bagged and inserted into its own water tight canister safe and sound.

 

Again, where does she say that she didn't see his name on the log? If it wasn't then I'd agree, but I don't think we know that... unless I'm missing something.

 

She did title the thread "Fake Finds". That leads me to believe that the signature was not there, otherwise the thread would have been something like "Inaccurate logs".

 

You could be right about that... but I just took that to be a bit of anguished hyperbole. Since she physically checked the log to see that it was dry, you'd think that she also would have checked to see if he had signed it, and if not, I would think that she'd have explicitly mentioned it.

 

I'm not trying to nit-pick, by the way, just want to make sure that we don't send out inaccurate advice based on assumptions.

 

For the record, and maybe I should have not overlooked mentioning this point, but the paper log was NOT signed. I did assume the title was enough explaination. My apologies.

 

In that case, especially in light of the other issues you have mentioned, I'd have no problem with you deep sixing his log. Please let us know if you hear back from your email.

Edited by knowschad
Link to comment

Delete his bogus log and if you want - send a polite email saying that the log was perfectly dry and you didn't see his signature - perhaps it was in error. ;)

Where does she say that she didn't see his signature on the log? Did I miss something?

 

No signature on dry log and not even a simple "bear track" to GZ. It was both a muddy and snowy trek to reach the cache.

Link to comment

The "wet log" phantom had emailed.

I had told him the log was dry but he still pussy footed around the topic and told me he couldn't recall what the cache or contents looked like. I do call this one out as an armchair log! :/

 

YET ANOTHER EMAIL…

Wet Log Phantom writes:

I found both of those. I explained that the wet log comment was a case of editing the logs several hours later. I use an app on my cell phone to geocache. Once I find it I hit a button which sets up a field note that I found the cache. I can then get on the computer and publish those notes with the generic found with phone line or edit them and add to it. I'm sorry that I sent you out there to check for nothing but I encountered so many damp logs on that cache run that I accidentally lumped yours in with the others while editing all the found logs. I've been doing this for some time now and I know what I am doing here and which caches I have and have not found.

 

------

So now my question is, if he is so "experienced" then he would know or have enough common sense to sign a perfectly dry log....

I will delete with a smile :)

Link to comment

The "wet log" phantom had emailed.

I had told him the log was dry but he still pussy footed around the topic and told me he couldn't recall what the cache or contents looked like. I do call this one out as an armchair log! :/

 

YET ANOTHER EMAIL…

Wet Log Phantom writes:

I found both of those. I explained that the wet log comment was a case of editing the logs several hours later. I use an app on my cell phone to geocache. Once I find it I hit a button which sets up a field note that I found the cache. I can then get on the computer and publish those notes with the generic found with phone line or edit them and add to it. I'm sorry that I sent you out there to check for nothing but I encountered so many damp logs on that cache run that I accidentally lumped yours in with the others while editing all the found logs. I've been doing this for some time now and I know what I am doing here and which caches I have and have not found.

 

------

So now my question is, if he is so "experienced" then he would know or have enough common sense to sign a perfectly dry log....

I will delete with a smile :)

If that's the case, then I'd say that Mr Wet Log Phantom should be reconsidering how he logs his caches. Most of us don't have such problems.

Link to comment
So now my question is, if he is so "experienced" then he would know or have enough common sense to sign a perfectly dry log....

 

Yeah, did he ever offer any explanation as to why he didn't sign it? Just couldn't be bothered or what?

Link to comment

I bring a digital camera with me. If there is something wrong (damaged container, wet log, etc) I can take a photo and attach that to my log when I post it. I won't give away the hide or the container unless it's to show a problem with it. This way, in case for some reason I can't sign the log, I can show I DID find it.

Link to comment
So now my question is, if he is so "experienced" then he would know or have enough common sense to sign a perfectly dry log....

 

Yeah, did he ever offer any explanation as to why he didn't sign it? Just couldn't be bothered or what?

 

Or how he got there without leaving footprints.

 

 

.a WCS popped into my head. It starts with: How do you poke a hole in a container with a pen?? Can't be an accident. From there, combined with a "Wet Log" log on a cache with a dry log, but a compromised container, makes me wonder if the other caches with similar logs now have similar "Pen Holes" made by a serial vandal who is subtly bragging about it in their logs.

 

Again, I really, really, really doubt this is the case, but in these forums I've read of stranger things happening.

 

It is not that hard to do, I've broken container by trying to jam in a ball point pen. You put a quality BIC Biro against a Dollar Store container and the BIC wins. It was in the container when I opened it, but would only go back if it was exactly corner to corner, I put it in crooked and it cracked the cold cheap plastic.

Edited by John in Valley Forge
Link to comment

I bring a digital camera with me. If there is something wrong (damaged container, wet log, etc) I can take a photo and attach that to my log when I post it. I won't give away the hide or the container unless it's to show a problem with it. This way, in case for some reason I can't sign the log, I can show I DID find it.

 

As I do also. Thanks for reminding me lol I did have to post a pic of an actual wet log to a fellow geocacher! :laughing:

Link to comment
So now my question is, if he is so "experienced" then he would know or have enough common sense to sign a perfectly dry log....

 

Yeah, did he ever offer any explanation as to why he didn't sign it? Just couldn't be bothered or what?

 

Or how he got there without leaving footprints.

 

 

.a WCS popped into my head. It starts with: How do you poke a hole in a container with a pen?? Can't be an accident. From there, combined with a "Wet Log" log on a cache with a dry log, but a compromised container, makes me wonder if the other caches with similar logs now have similar "Pen Holes" made by a serial vandal who is subtly bragging about it in their logs.

 

Again, I really, really, really doubt this is the case, but in these forums I've read of stranger things happening.

 

It is not that hard to do, I've broken container by trying to jam in a ball point pen. You put a quality BIC Biro against a Dollar Store container and the BIC wins. It was in the container when I opened it, but would only go back if it was exactly corner to corner, I put it in crooked and it cracked the cold cheap plastic.

 

I guessing that is what happened because the original container had a small pen that must have lost its way back into the container. The original cache was a plastic kool-aid container with screw on top and the [normal sized] pen that jabbed through was pretty crammed. I dont think it was done intentionally and swag was barely damp for sitting all winter. I had the original log in a couple of small zip bags and rolled into a pill bottle placed in the cache. It was still sound and DRY when I retreived it and there was no sign of previous water entry.

Link to comment
So now my question is, if he is so "experienced" then he would know or have enough common sense to sign a perfectly dry log....

 

Yeah, did he ever offer any explanation as to why he didn't sign it? Just couldn't be bothered or what?

 

No explanation. I did how ever get a pretty P.O.ed email when he realized I deleted his log. Well...DAH, you obviously didnt seek it! lol :blink:

Link to comment

Now my big question is how can I block this jerk from emailing me, considering he is getting nasty now? Is there some TOS he is violating? He did re-log his find with an offensive statement about me deleting it but I also deleted that one. I do not doubt he will ride again! Like a dang cockroach...shew, go away!

 

 

LOG NOTE:

Apparently little miss perfect, the git who placed this cache has never made a mistake before about which cache had a damp log. Furthermore she has now decided to try to slander my good name. I would highly suggest others avoid any caches placed by her because they simply are not exciting enough to deal with her BS! Its people like this cache owner who make others quit the game.

 

EMAIL:

I do intend to take it up with geocaching.com because I signed the log, there was no snow that day in the area, it was pouring down rain, and no one has ever complained about me before so now you are posting slanderous remarks about me. As for not describing what your lame cache looked like you will one day understand that when you go out and get more than one a day that sometimes you don't bother to make a note about what all the insignificant crap caches look like. As a noob you are doing a piss poor job interacting with other cachers!

 

Wow obviously this guy doesnt understand the concept of guide lines? To me a family sport should not be portrayed by an armchair logger who stands in his profile photo with a beer in his hand *snort* :rolleyes:

Edited by LingHoney
Link to comment

Now my big question is how can I block this jerk from emailing me, considering he is getting nasty now? Is there some TOS he is violating? He did re-log his find with an offensive statement about me deleting it but I also deleted that one. I do not doubt he will ride again! Like a dang cockroach...shew, go away!

 

 

LOG NOTE:

Apparently little miss perfect, the git who placed this cache has never made a mistake before about which cache had a damp log. Furthermore she has now decided to try to slander my good name. I would highly suggest others avoid any caches placed by her because they simply are not exciting enough to deal with her BS! Its people like this cache owner who make others quit the game.

 

EMAIL:

I do intend to take it up with geocaching.com because I signed the log, there was no snow that day in the area, it was pouring down rain, and no one has ever complained about me before so now you are posting slanderous remarks about me. As for not describing what your lame cache looked like you will one day understand that when you go out and get more than one a day that sometimes you don't bother to make a note about what all the insignificant crap caches look like. As a noob you are doing a piss poor job interacting with other cachers!

 

Wow obviously this guy doesnt understand the concept of guide lines? To me a family sport should not be portrayed by an armchair logger who stands in his profile photo with a beer in his hand *snort* :rolleyes:

 

If I ever do so many caches in a day that I can't seem to remember any details at all about them - Than I did too many. Time to find a more worthwhile pursuit.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 1
×
×
  • Create New...