Does this qualify as a find ? (etiquite)

[+user13371]

... I am a Puritan ... I'd rather have my name in the book rather than anything thing else...

I'm somewhere between puritan and dilettante. It's enough for me to know I found it, but I won't claim a find if I didn't really have the thing in hand. As I said, if a CO wants to delete my find for lack of a ink on a page, I'm okay with that -- and if/when that happens I do make it a point to revisit and sign, sooner than later.

 

Now, on the question of being a puritan -- the points of this game were originally described in this order: Use a GPS to find the location, look for the container, take some stuff, leave some stuff, record it all in the log book. "Goodies" and "stuff" are mentioned repeatedly in the holy writ*. Does a puritan eschew micros/nanos too small to contain trade items? Or disdain a log that is less a "book" and more a tiny scroll barely large enough to sign?

Edited March 20, 2011 by Portland Cyclist

[+hotshoe]

After reading all of the post, I would have just grabbed it, signed it, then let the muggle have it. Kidding, but I am sure that is what goes thru the cachers head after his find gets deleted.

 

Yep. That's why I would never recommend a CO to delete a log - it's a lot riskier for the cache owner than it is for the cache "finder". The finder only risks losing one smiley, the CO risks losing a cache. Not even through maliciousness, but like you say, because the next time that finder is in a muggle situation, s/he will be more likely to drop caution and just grab the cache no matter what.

 

Cache owners should really think through what message they are sending - "I don't care if my cache gets muggled because someone was desperate to sign it" - is that really the message you want to spread with your insistence on deleting unsigned finds ?

[+L0ne.R]

... I am a Puritan ... I'd rather have my name in the book rather than anything thing else...

I'm somewhere between puritan and dilettante. It's enough for me to know I found it, but I won't claim a find if I didn't really have the thing in hand. As I said, if a CO wants to delete my find for lack of a ink on a page, I'm okay with that -- and if/when that happens I do make it a point to revisit and sign, sooner than later.

 

I'm with you - if it's a basic cache and I have it in hand but can't sign the log because I can't open it (e.g. frozen in, rusted shut) or the logbook is soggy, full, or missing I will take a photo of it, log it as a find, note the problem in the log, post the photo if it's not a spoiler or offer to email the CO the photo. I will also note that I'll understand if the CO deletes the find (so far, so good). The exception would be puzzle caches that require some thinking or tools to get to the log, it's not a find if I can't sign the log where the challenge is to get at logbook.

 

WRT being a CO I'm with CR, I don't delete finds. It's not worth the potential hassle. But I would delete a bot find.

 

Now, on the question of being a puritan -- the points of this game were originally described in this order: Use a GPS to find the location, look for the container, take some stuff, leave some stuff, record it in the log book. "Goodies" and "stuff" are mentioned repeatedly in the holy writ*. Does a puritan eschew micros/nanos too small to contain trade items? Or disdain a log that is less a "book" and more a tiny scroll barely large enough to sign?

 

I might be a puritan since I prefer the traditional 'goodies/stuff' caches, with logs that are 'books' rather then sheets or scrolls. If micros/nanos were given their own site, like waymarks, I'd be a happy camper.

Edited March 20, 2011 by Lone R

[+L0ne.R]

Cache owners should really think through what message they are sending - "I don't care if my cache gets muggled because someone was desperate to sign it" - is that really the message you want to spread with your insistence on deleting unsigned finds ?

 

Good point.

[+BlueDeuce]

...

Edited March 20, 2011 by BlueDeuce

[+StarBrand]

After reading all of the post, I would have just grabbed it, signed it, then let the muggle have it. Kidding, but I am sure that is what goes thru the cachers head after his find gets deleted.

 

Yep. That's why I would never recommend a CO to delete a log - it's a lot riskier for the cache owner than it is for the cache "finder". The finder only risks losing one smiley, the CO risks losing a cache. Not even through maliciousness, but like you say, because the next time that finder is in a muggle situation, s/he will be more likely to drop caution and just grab the cache no matter what.

 

Cache owners should really think through what message they are sending - "I don't care if my cache gets muggled because someone was desperate to sign it" - is that really the message you want to spread with your insistence on deleting unsigned finds ?

 

That is among the more ridiculous statements I've ever read.

 

Reverse blame - its the cache owner at fault for maintaining some integrity on cache logging practices - when a cache gets muggled - really??!!?? Yikes!!

[+tozainamboku]

Cache owners should really think through what message they are sending - "I don't care if my cache gets muggled because someone was desperate to sign it" - is that really the message you want to spread with your insistence on deleting unsigned finds ?

 

That is among the more ridiculous statements I've ever read.

 

Reverse blame - its the cache owner at fault for maintaining some integrity on cache logging practices - when a cache gets muggled - really??!!?? Yikes!!

I think the whole problem is that both sides want to assign more value to a smiley than it actually has.

 

The cache owner trying to "maintain some integrity" is enforcing a rule that has no place in a fun light game. If someone has found the cache let them log it. Do go deleting online logs because the "score" would be wrong if the physical log is not signed. It isn't a score. If someone finds the cache they should be allowed to log it online.

 

On the other hand should a cache owner delete your log because it appear to be bogus or because the intent was that you needed to use stealth, or climb a tree, or bring your own pen, and you didn't do this, then you have one less smiley, it isn't worth to get get back by trashing someone's cache (no matter how much of a jerk he is in deleting logs). Either go back and sign the log or just write it off. The find count isn't a score - so one less find is not the end of the world.

[+StarBrand]

...

The cache owner trying to "maintain some integrity" is enforcing a rule that has no place in a fun light game. If someone has found the cache let them log it. ...

 

Thats the whole point - I don't know if they found the cache. They leave no evidence of a visit and no evidence of even opening the container. To me signing (marking) the log is a basic fundamental requiremnt of caching. Stating flatly that you could not be bothered to open the cache and sign the log is a problem.

 

So, being the generally honest person that I am - I delete thier log because I expect the same kind of honest minimal efforts of caching from others that I hold for myself. The guidelines give me the room to do it - so I will.

[+joranda]

[+tozainamboku]

So, being the generally honest person that I am - I delete thier log because I expect the same kind of honest minimal efforts of caching from others that I hold for myself. The guidelines give me the room to do it - so I will.

I don't understand why you can't presume that someone else is a generally honest person and take their word for is when they say they found your cache. A truly bogus logger will have a record of over and and over again claiming caches they didn't find. Generally you can figure out when someone is doing this and delete their logs. If you can't tell then neither can the next finder. The fact that a possibly bogus log didn't get deleted is not the most terrible thing. But we have seen that a finder may feel unjustly accused by having their log deleted when they feel they have found the cache.

 

I generally make a exception for a cache where the owner intends you to meet some challenge in retrieving the cache or signing the log. In this case, signing the log proves you overcame the challenge (e.g. climbing a tree, opening a puzzle box, using stealth around muggles, etc.). While I would like cache owners to be flexible on these caches as well, I can understand the desire to prove that the cache was experienced as intended.

[+StarBrand]

So, being the generally honest person that I am - I delete thier log because I expect the same kind of honest minimal efforts of caching from others that I hold for myself. The guidelines give me the room to do it - so I will.

I don't understand why you can't presume that someone else is a generally honest person and take their word for is when they say they found your cache. A truly bogus logger will have a record of over and and over again claiming caches they didn't find. Generally you can figure out when someone is doing this and delete their logs. If you can't tell then neither can the next finder. The fact that a possibly bogus log didn't get deleted is not the most terrible thing. But we have seen that a finder may feel unjustly accused by having their log deleted when they feel they have found the cache.

 

I generally make a exception for a cache where the owner intends you to meet some challenge in retrieving the cache or signing the log. In this case, signing the log proves you overcame the challenge (e.g. climbing a tree, opening a puzzle box, using stealth around muggles, etc.). While I would like cache owners to be flexible on these caches as well, I can understand the desire to prove that the cache was experienced as intended.

 

Are you perhaps responding in the wrong thread?? This thread is about a cacher that:

"made the find but couldnt get cache to sign log due to a muggler nearby"

Therefore not a find and I will delete the log.

[+KBfamily]

We were 4 miles out into the desert on a quad, climbed a good sized hill (again in the desert with snakes, cholla, rocks, etc.), realized I didn't have a pen went back down the hill, rode the quad four miles back to the car to get a pen. Went back to the cache to sign the log...if you don't sign the log, how is that a "find"? If you don't have a pen or pencil, you should go get one and then sign the log.....I'm just sayin'......

Edited March 20, 2011 by KBfamily

[+Vodor and Scorsby]

A Cacher logged a find for one of my hides and stated "made the find but couldnt get cache to sign log due to a muggler nearby"....I am considering deleting the find....in my opinion part of the game is the stealth required to make the grab....sign the log....and replace.....any thoughts?

 

I would delete the log if it was on one of our caches. But I would send a very diplomatic email to the cacher as well. Something along the lines of.....

------------------------------------------

Hi there.

 

Just checking through our logs on GC123123 - Helm View and I noticed you had some trouble getting to the cache. Sorry you couldnt get to sign the log but unfortunatly Groundspeak rules are that you must sign the log in the cache to log a find. They do this to prevent what is called "Armchair logging" The cache is in an urban location and at times it can be difficult to acceess the cache but this is part of the challenge and is why the cache is hidden there. It is also taken into account when deciding ont he difficulty rating for the cache.

 

Although I have had to delete the log, if you do need any help finding the cache, just pop me an email and I'll give you whatever help I can.

 

All the best

 

Vodor.

-------------------------------------------

 

Having said all that if the cacher cant sign the log for some reason thats our fault and logs a DNF, ie cache container jammed and couldnt get into the bonus. etc etc then I usually send them an email telling them to go ahead and log it.

[+L0ne.R]

We were 4 miles out into the desert on a quad, climbed a good sized hill (again in the desert with snakes, cholla, rocks, etc.), realized I didn't have a pen went back down the hill, rode the quad four miles back to the car to get a pen. Went back to the cache to sign the log...if you don't sign the log, how is that a "find"? If you don't have a pen or pencil, you should go get one and then sign the log.....I'm just sayin'......

 

I have resorted to a twig and some dirt to sign a log. No pencil in the cache, thought I had one on me but I didn't. Walked through a thicket of wild raspberry canes and burrs and I didn't want to have to repeat the experience by going to the car for a pencil. In your case, especially if I walked the 4 miles, I think I would have pulled a needle off a desert plant and poked a few holes in an R pattern.

[+Sagefox]

...But I might NOT sign if the log is full, missing, or too wet to sign, or if my pen goes bad. In those "can't sign" cases, I'll usually claim the find with an explanation and post some non-spoiler photo as proof. And if the "can't sign" problem is that the log is missing or wet (and I have nothing to replace it with), I'll also post a NM right after my find.

 

Very reasonable. I agree.

[+WRASTRO]

So, being the generally honest person that I am - I delete thier log because I expect the same kind of honest minimal efforts of caching from others that I hold for myself. The guidelines give me the room to do it - so I will.

I don't understand why you can't presume that someone else is a generally honest person and take their word for is when they say they found your cache. A truly bogus logger will have a record of over and and over again claiming caches they didn't find. Generally you can figure out when someone is doing this and delete their logs. If you can't tell then neither can the next finder. The fact that a possibly bogus log didn't get deleted is not the most terrible thing. But we have seen that a finder may feel unjustly accused by having their log deleted when they feel they have found the cache.

 

I generally make a exception for a cache where the owner intends you to meet some challenge in retrieving the cache or signing the log. In this case, signing the log proves you overcame the challenge (e.g. climbing a tree, opening a puzzle box, using stealth around muggles, etc.). While I would like cache owners to be flexible on these caches as well, I can understand the desire to prove that the cache was experienced as intended.

Excellent! As a cache owner I intend that cachers meet the challenge of opening the cache and signing the log I have placed inside the cache in order to claim the find online. Seems like a simple and reasonable challenge to me.

[+SteAngDavZac]

A Cacher logged a find for one of my hides and stated "made the find but couldnt get cache to sign log due to a muggler nearby"....I am considering deleting the find....in my opinion part of the game is the stealth required to make the grab....sign the log....and replace.....any thoughts?

 

I would delete the log if it was on one of our caches. But I would send a very diplomatic email to the cacher as well. Something along the lines of.....

------------------------------------------

Hi there.

 

Just checking through our logs on GC123123 - Helm View and I noticed you had some trouble getting to the cache. Sorry you couldnt get to sign the log but unfortunatly Groundspeak rules are that you must sign the log in the cache to log a find. They do this to prevent what is called "Armchair logging" The cache is in an urban location and at times it can be difficult to acceess the cache but this is part of the challenge and is why the cache is hidden there. It is also taken into account when deciding ont he difficulty rating for the cache.

 

Although I have had to delete the log, if you do need any help finding the cache, just pop me an email and I'll give you whatever help I can.

 

All the best

 

Vodor.

-------------------------------------------

 

Having said all that if the cacher cant sign the log for some reason thats our fault and logs a DNF, ie cache container jammed and couldnt get into the bonus. etc etc then I usually send them an email telling them to go ahead and log it.

Well said....are you by chance a politician?!?!(I think I just might use this)

[+tozainamboku]

Are you perhaps responding in the wrong thread?? This thread is about a cacher that:

"made the find but couldnt get cache to sign log due to a muggler nearby"

Therefore not a find and I will delete the log.

As I pointed out in my original response to this thread, I agreed that the cache owner could delete the log in this case. I suggested using the the Stealth Required attribute to warn finder that there may be issues with muggles; and I gave some reason why a cache owner might not want to delete the log in this case. But clearly, in the case described by the OP the cache owner could say that dealing with muggles was part of finding the cache.

 

What happens in these threads however are that some people will invent rules to justify deleting logs like the following:

 

Groundspeak rules are that you must sign the log in the cache to log a find. They do this to prevent what is called "Armchair logging" .

There is no rule that you must sign the physical log in order to log the find online. What there is, is a rule that cache owners are responsible for the their cache listing including quality control of the logs. Caches owners can delete logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off-topic, or otherwise inappropriate. This includes "Armchair logs" where the logger did not even go look for the cache. If a the physical log is signed, this serves as sufficient proof that the logger did find the cache. A cache owner would be hard pressed to delete the log as being bogus if the physical log is signed. It is up to the cache owner to determine what appears bogus in other cases. Most cache owners will give the benefit of the doubt to an online logger unless it is obvious they are logging bogus finds. If you provide a reasonable excuse for not signing the log and can provide some information to the cache owner to make it clear you were in the area and found their container, the overwhelming majority of cache owners will not delete your log.

 

Some caches involve some physical or mental challenge to retrieve the cache or sign the lot. It is more likely that the owner of a cache like this will delete your find if you did not sign the log.

 

I generally make a exception for a cache where the owner intends you to meet some challenge in retrieving the cache or signing the log. In this case, signing the log proves you overcame the challenge (e.g. climbing a tree, opening a puzzle box, using stealth around muggles, etc.). While I would like cache owners to be flexible on these caches as well, I can understand the desire to prove that the cache was experienced as intended.

Excellent! As a cache owner I intend that cachers meet the challenge of opening the cache and signing the log I have placed inside the cache in order to claim the find online. Seems like a simple and reasonable challenge to me.

Of course you know what I was refering to. I even gave some examples. The problem for Groundspeak is that as long as they allow cache owners to delete logs in these cases any cache owner can claim that without a signature you didn't meet their challenge. The puritans' favorite phrase from the guidelines for logging physical cache doesn't require the log be signed, but it does limit cache owners from requiring anything beyond a signed log as proof that their challenge is met. Sadly that means that a puritan cache owner can delete a find log from a cache they know clear well was found (or at least have no reason to doubt) just because a log was not signed. My recommendation for cachers is to always try and sign the log; you never know if you will get a puritan cache owner.

[+SteAngDavZac]

Well.....Thanks for all of the feedback....I deleted the log....sent a polite email....got a response:

"Fair enough. I didnt want to compromise the cache"

[+GeoGeeBee]

Well.....Thanks for all of the feedback....I deleted the log....sent a polite email....got a response:

"Fair enough. I didnt want to compromise the cache"

Fair enough, yes. But when he goes back, if there are muggles around, he probably isn't going to be quite so careful about compromising the cache.

[+escomag]

Well.....Thanks for all of the feedback....I deleted the log....sent a polite email....got a response:

"Fair enough. I didnt want to compromise the cache"

Fair enough, yes. But when he goes back, if there are muggles around, he probably isn't going to be quite so careful about compromising the cache.

exactly! Since the actual signing is all that counts, who am I to care if I am spotted? I no longer check to see if I am watched at High Muggle areas. I act like I have business there, perform it, and leave. If someone decides to investigate, well, that's why the invite paper is in the cache in the first place isn't it? Same goes for LPC's. I have decided that there is no way to raise that skirt quietly, so I just make the thing screech as loud as possible. As a possible throw off to muggles watching, I always walk to another, screech it up, and inspect under it also. I do cache from a work truck, so I look less suspicious.