find or no find

[+JoesBar]

As many of you are doing, I'm trying to complete my calendar for finds. (at least one find for every day.) I needed a find on March 11. In my part of the country, there was a snow storm. But, I needed a find. so I ventured out to try to get one. After driving through 10 inches of snow and two dnfs, I found a cache. But, I could not retrieve it. I'll spare the details, but I simply could not get the cache and sign the log. So I only posted a note. That's the way I play the game.

A couple months later I see a new a cache posted. One of the logs, claiming a find, stated how the finder saw the cache but could not reach it as it was too high. they stated they had proof of photos.

I know folks play the game differently. But I'd like opinions as to find or no find.

Can I claim a find for a cache that I could see but not retrieve, and should those other folks claim a find for a cache they could see but not retrieve?

[+NanCycle]

Can I claim a find for a cache that I could see but not retrieve, NO

 

and should those other folks claim a find for a cache they could see but not retrieve? NO

 

But, you are only in charge of what you do, and unless you are the owner of the other cache, you should MYOB.

[Pup Patrol]

At least it's better than folks clicking on the "found it" option, but writing in their logs that they didn't actually find the cache.

 

Photos that show the cache is actually there is a little bit helpful, at least.

 

Don't get too concerned about how other people play the game. It will just drive you nuts.

 

Oops, forgot to add: it's between you and the cache owner...contact the cache owner and explain the situation where you couldn't retrieve the cache. If they allow you to log it as a find, then go ahead and do it, if you want.

Edited May 6, 2011 by Pup Patrol

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

You can do anything you want (you have already demonstrated that capability). The true question is.... should you. It's pretty much only the CO that will/may challenge your decision. You have no leg to stand on when they delete your find, wrecking your "perfect" record.

 

EDIT: But then, the CO wouldn't truly be the one that wrecked your "record". That would've been you, as you are the one that said:

That's the way I play the game.

Edited May 6, 2011 by Gitchee-Gummee

[+CanadianRockies]

Can I claim a find for a cache that I could see but not retrieve

No. Because, as you noted earlier, that's not how you play the game.

 

should those other folks claim a find for a cache they could see but not retrieve?

Yes, if the cache owner allows them to do so. Because that's how they play the game.

[+the4dirtydogs]

I would have to say NO find. Just because you can see the caches doesn't mean you can log a find. You must retrieve the cache, sign the log, and place the container back as you found it. Then you can claim a smiley.

[+sword fern]

As many of you are doing, I'm trying to complete my calendar for finds. (at least one find for every day.) I needed a find on March 11. In my part of the country, there was a snow storm. But, I needed a find. so I ventured out to try to get one. After driving through 10 inches of snow and two dnfs, I found a cache. But, I could not retrieve it. I'll spare the details, but I simply could not get the cache and sign the log. So I only posted a note. That's the way I play the game.

A couple months later I see a new a cache posted. One of the logs, claiming a find, stated how the finder saw the cache but could not reach it as it was too high. they stated they had proof of photos.

I know folks play the game differently. But I'd like opinions as to find or no find.

Can I claim a find for a cache that I could see but not retrieve, and should those other folks claim a find for a cache they could see but not retrieve?

 

I would say you can log a find only if youve signed the log, or taken a picture if no pen.

[+Coldgears]

May 6 by Coldgears (266 found)

I got permission to log this cache if I just glanced at the container. Of course that was like 6 months ago. But hey, it doesn't have an expiration date... Does it?

 

This cache was 15 feet high in the teeth of a dinosaur.

 

http://coord.info/GC2KKT9

 

 

Ask for permission by the CO.

Edited May 7, 2011 by Coldgears

[+WRASTRO]

May 6 by Coldgears (266 found)

I got permission to log this cache if I just glanced at the container. Of course that was like 6 months ago. But hey, it doesn't have an expiration date... Does it?

 

This cache was 15 feet high in the teeth of a dinosaur.

 

http://coord.info/GC2KKT9

 

 

Ask for permission by the CO.

Don't sacrifice your integrity for a smiley. The OP has the right idea (in my opinion) of what constitutes a find. If there is a problem with the container itself, other than weather, I will consider contacting the CO. If I simply can't or won't do what is needed to retrieve the container so I can sign the log I do not claim a find. And I log a DNF or note.

Edited May 7, 2011 by WRASTRO

[+Harry Dolphin]

OP, I'm with you. You did right. The fact that other cachers claim finds for caches they did not sign (did not find) is not relevant. They evoke pity.

There is no picture of me fifteen feet up a tree, with my fins on the bottom of the cache. I could not climb any higher, and I could not open the cache. So, that was a DNF! Those are my standards. That's how I play the game. Sign log, get smiley! Then there ws the time I saw a cache that had been shredded by a lawnmower. Shattered pink plastic, and shredded log all over the lawn. DNF.

[AZcachemeister]

In my world, the log must be signed. Period. Paragraph. End of story.

There can be extenuating circumstances (and the CO should be consulted on those) (such as the log was a soggy ball of mush), but SEEING the container is not the same as getting to it and signing the log.

If I need special equipment (or the weather conditions aren't favorable) I post a note (or maybe say nothing) and come back later when I CAN sign the log. If the requirements are more than I want to handle, I'll simply ignore the cache.

[+lamoracke]

given the 2 choices...if I could see the cache but not retrieve it, that would no way be a smiley.

 

However, if you reached the cache and it was frozen shut and nothing you could do to get it open despite you having it your own hands....in that case, if the CO was willing, I "might" be more willing to log a find. I mean, you had the cache in your hand and to open it, you might have had to break it.

 

It would be one thing if the cache itself was a puzzle you had to open through some game, but if it was just frozen shut, well, that depends as folks say, how you play and what the CO is willing.

[+Student Camper]

If you follow the guidelines set forth on Geocaching.com, it reads, Sign the log, get a smiley, if not signed, no smiley.

If you want to make up your own rules and play the game in any manner you choose, go ahead and take the smiley, no one else cares.

[+Coldgears]

Sign the log, get a smiley, if not signed, no smiley.

Please show me where it says that... NOT taken out of context.

[+keehotee]

Sign the log, get a smiley, if not signed, no smiley.

Please show me where it says that... NOT taken out of context.

 

Here???

 

The Game

What is geocaching?

How is the game played?

At its simplest level, geocaching requires these 8 steps:

 

Register for a free Basic Membership.

Visit the "Hide & Seek a Cache" page.

Enter your postal code and click "search."

Choose any geocache from the list and click on its name.

Enter the coordinates of the geocache into your GPS Device.

Use your GPS device to assist you in finding the hidden geocache.

Sign the logbook and return the geocache to its original location.

Share your geocaching stories and photos online.

[+JoesBar]

Thanks for the input. Sometimes it's just annoying to see how this game is played.

I'm going to leave things be.

[+tozainamboku]

If you follow the guidelines set forth on Geocaching.com, it reads, Sign the log, get a smiley, if not signed, no smiley.

If you want to make up your own rules and play the game in any manner you choose, go ahead and take the smiley, no one else cares.

You're the one making up rules. While the guidance given geocachers is to sign the physical log when they find the cache, there is no rule that says you must sign the log in order to "get a smiley". The online find log is not a score. It is a way for geocachers to share their geocaching experiences with others, thank cache owners for putting out a cache to find, and keep track of what caches they have already visited.

 

According to the guidelines for listing caches on geocaching.com, cache owners are responsible for the quality control of post to their cache pages. As such, they are told to delete logs which appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off-topic, or otherwise inappropriate. Among other things, an online find by someone who never visited the cache (sometimes referred to as a couch potato log) should be deleted by the cache owner. Some cache owners have asked how they can tell if an online log is bogus. One recommendation is to use the physical log. If they cannot identify a signature in the physical log that corresponds to the online log, they may delete the online log (though is generally recommended that they ask the online logger to provide some other proof of find before deleting the log).

 

Prior to April 4, 2009 cache owners were permitted under some conditions to have additional requirements for posting an online find on their cache. The guidelines were changed on that date to clarify that for physical caches, once the physical log book is signed, a cacher may log the find online. Any additional requirements for posting an online log could no longer be enforced. (Later an exception was made for challenge caches).

 

Stop inventing rules that don't exist. If you personally wish to only log find online for caches where you have signed the physical log feel free to do this. (There are a number of good reasons for signing the physical log including that it verifies you actually found the cache and not something else like a decoy or a letterbox). If a cache owner wishes to allow an online log because a person found the cache but was unable to sign the log for some reason, the cache owner may do this.

[+Coldgears]

Sign the log, get a smiley, if not signed, no smiley.

Please show me where it says that... NOT taken out of context.

 

Here???

 

The Game

What is geocaching?

How is the game played?

At its simplest level, geocaching requires these 8 steps:

 

Register for a free Basic Membership.

Visit the "Hide & Seek a Cache" page.

Enter your postal code and click "search."

Choose any geocache from the list and click on its name.

Enter the coordinates of the geocache into your GPS Device.

Use your GPS device to assist you in finding the hidden geocache.

Sign the logbook and return the geocache to its original location.

Share your geocaching stories and photos online.

This is exactly what I meant by "out of context".

 

If I just use a GPX file and don't "Enter my postal code and click 'search'" and, I don't, "Choose any geocache from the list and click its name." then it doesn't count as a find. No, that's BS you just made up. Those are there as a general way of letting newbies know what to do. Not the end all be all of what is required to log a cache.

[mresoteric]

Share your geocaching stories and photos online.

 

If you are arguing that those instructions translate into absolutes which, if not followed, equal no find, please explain this:

 

"Status: declinedWe now support blank logs instead of forcing the user to type things like "." and "TFTC" to post a log. We decided to do this since "I found it" is enough of an action for those who would prefer not to post a verbose log.D8694a01-3296-482a-864d-963873e38ba9 Jeremy Admin"

[Andronicus]

It is kind of up to you and your caching philosiphy. If you are a puritan, you could log the find, because you did find the cache, and the retrieval was not the intended challange by the CO, it was a nasty trick of the weather, then go back when it warmed up, and do the actual signing.

 

I would have taken a photo, slipped a signature item inside if I could get the lid to open a big, and be done with it. That is base on my "it is just a game" philosiphy.

[+KristenSh]

For me (and I suppose I'm still a newbie, only a year into the game and under 100 finds), I look at it as whether it's an issue with the cache or with me. If *I* can't get to the cache, because it's just higher than I can reach and I didn't bring a tool, or whatever, then it doesn't count. On the other hand, to use a local example, if a bison tube was placed in a tree's knothole, and the tree grew around it and swallowed the tube, and I retrieved the log which was a soggy unsignable spitwad, and I couldn't get the cap back on because the tree had warped it ... that's a find (and a Needs Maintenance log). LOL. Still have that log ... I had hopes of spreading it out to dry and returning it to the owner, but it was a total loss ... just a weird souvenir for me now.

 

But that's just how I try to play the game. Everyone has a slightly different style, and everyone has different abilities. I lead a Cub Scout den and a Girl Scout troop, and I do have kids who would never be able to individually access certain caches on their own, but who can work with us as a team to find things. Mostly folks seem to accept team searches and logs (though I guess teams usually have each member sign?) so to me it seems the rules can be flexible. It's about the fun of it and the spirit of it.

 

I do have one find where I couldn't access the log at all... I didn't realize the error was mine, I truly thought the log was unreachable, and posted the appropriate notes. I daresay I generated some chuckles from veterans in the know, and I have since learned that invisible fishing line is apparently a geo-resource... The CO has been kind enough to let my log stand, though. I'm okay with it for me, and had a good laugh about the way it was hidden and accessed once I learned, and someday when it won't annoy my kids, I'll make another run and get my name on the dotted line.

[+baloo&bd]

For all of you twisting things around to suit you needs, consider this; If I delete your log, the ONLY way you will get GS to support the reinstatement of said log is to show proof of signature. i.e. you physically signed the log. At most, I may have to prove you did not.

 

So while you can say it is not written in the guidelines or "rules", using what is written there, this behavior by GS implies that not signing the log is reasonably considered a bogus online log.

 

Reality is that unless you throw it in the CO's face by putting in the log you did not sign it, nothing will probably ever happen other than you knowing you did not complete the find properly. However if it does get deleted, it is a reasonable response.

[+Mudfrog]

Sign the log, get a smiley, if not signed, no smiley.

Please show me where it says that... NOT taken out of context.

 

Here???

 

The Game

What is geocaching?

How is the game played?

At its simplest level, geocaching requires these 8 steps:

 

Register for a free Basic Membership.

Visit the "Hide & Seek a Cache" page.

Enter your postal code and click "search."

Choose any geocache from the list and click on its name.

Enter the coordinates of the geocache into your GPS Device.

Use your GPS device to assist you in finding the hidden geocache.

Sign the logbook and return the geocache to its original location.

Share your geocaching stories and photos online.

 

"At its simplest level, geocaching requires these 8 steps:"

How long has this statement been on gc.com?

 

Yes, to log a find on gc.com, you need to register. I also agree that a person should sign the physical log (under most circumstances). But it implying that a person has to go through steps 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8 is pure nonsense. The word "requires" means to me, that the aboves steps must be taken. The steps above may be one way to geocache but they're certainly not required to log a find. Imo, this wording needs to be changed.

 

As to the OP's question: I've seen logs come in stating that the person saw the cache, maybe even had it in their hands, but couldn't reach it, retrieve it, or open it to sign the log. One thing to think about,, What if the object that person saw or had in their hands wasn't really the cache? Most likely it was but, in most cases, a person couldn't be absolutely sure unless they opened it up. I figure the best way to make sure is to find and sign that physical log!

[+Coldgears]

For all of you twisting things around to suit you needs, consider this; If I delete your log, the ONLY way you will get GS to support the reinstatement of said log is to show proof of signature. i.e. you physically signed the log. At most, I may have to prove you did not.

 

So while you can say it is not written in the guidelines or "rules", using what is written there, this behavior by GS implies that not signing the log is reasonably considered a bogus online log.

 

Reality is that unless you throw it in the CO's face by putting in the log you did not sign it, nothing will probably ever happen other than you knowing you did not complete the find properly. However if it does get deleted, it is a reasonable response.

So who are you agreeing with. On one hand you are agreeing with me, as the whole point of my post was to say, get permission to see if you can log it without signing it. On the other hand your also agreeing withthose that attacked me for saying that even with permission its a no find...

 

TOO MUCH CONFUSION!

[mresoteric]

For all of you twisting things around to suit you needs, consider this; If I delete your log, the ONLY way you will get GS to support the reinstatement of said log is to show proof of signature. i.e. you physically signed the log. At most, I may have to prove you did not.

 

So while you can say it is not written in the guidelines or "rules", using what is written there, this behavior by GS implies that not signing the log is reasonably considered a bogus online log.

 

Reality is that unless you throw it in the CO's face by putting in the log you did not sign it, nothing will probably ever happen other than you knowing you did not complete the find properly. However if it does get deleted, it is a reasonable response.

 

Who's twisting anything? Everything you just said is true.

 

But, if the OP wanted to log the cache as a find AND the owner accepted the find due to the lid being stuck, then that is allowed as well. The guidelines do not prohibit such a find.

[+baloo&bd]

So who are you agreeing with. On one hand you are agreeing with me, as the whole point of my post was to say, get permission to see if you can log it without signing it. On the other hand your also agreeing withthose that attacked me for saying that even with permission its a no find...

 

TOO MUCH CONFUSION!

 

No confusion, you were incorrect in your assumptions.

 

Because something may be simply allowed by a CO does not make it correct. Ever go 2 or 3 miles over the speed limit and pass by a LEO without getting pulled over?

 

Sign, log on line as found. Does not get much simpler.

Edited May 8, 2011 by baloo&bd

[+baloo&bd]

Who's twisting anything? Everything you just said is true.

 

But, if the OP wanted to log the cache as a find AND the owner accepted the find due to the lid being stuck, then that is allowed as well. The guidelines do not prohibit such a find.

 

If you check the OP, they were asking if they SHOULD, to which common sense dictates the correct response would be no. My point was that if the CO decided to comply with the guidelines they agreed to when they posted the cache and delete bogus and fraudulent logs, they would be supported by GS.

 

GS longstanding position is that they are reactive rather than proactive when it comes to logs an we as CO's agree to self-police the logs and that they will only get involved as the exception rather than the rule. As such, they do not just scan logs looking for violations.

[+StarBrand]

...

, if the OP wanted to log the cache as a find AND the owner accepted the find due to the lid being stuck, then that is allowed as well. The guidelines do not prohibit such a find.

No they don't.

 

But it does not change how cheesy that 'find' is either.

[+tozainamboku]

For all of you twisting things around to suit you needs, consider this; If I delete your log, the ONLY way you will get GS to support the reinstatement of said log is to show proof of signature. i.e. you physically signed the log. At most, I may have to prove you did not.

I'm not sure this is 100% correct.

 

Cache owners are supposed to delete logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off-topic, or other wise inappropriate. Prior to April, 2009 cache owners could also delete find logs that failed to meet addtional logging requirements.

 

Groundspeak has for a long time had to deal with a few cache owners who delete legitimate find log for arbitrary reasons. Sometimes they have dealt with these cache owners by restoring the deleted logs and occasionally archiving and locking the caches to prevent the owner from continuing to delete logs. However, the preference is for cache owners and the logger to work out the issues among themselves. After the change in 2009, Groundspeak had to deal with cache owners who continued to try and enforce ALRs by deleting logs. In these cases, Groundspeak was able to turn to the new guideline on logging physical caches that states an online find can be logged once the physical log has been signed. So if a cacher could show they signed the log, the log would be restored and the cache owner would be told not to delete it.

 

It may be that some cache owners have deleted logs because someone did not sign the physical log and it may that Groundspeak has not restored these logs (as they would with an ALR issue). Some may wish to interpret this lack of action as proof that the physical log must be signed to claim a find. Of course, it doesn't imply this at all. Generally, a cache owner deleting a find log will claim that it is a bogus log. If the finder is able to provide some reasonable proof that they found the cache, most cache owners, even puritans, will allow a find to stand. So my guess is that most cases where a log in not signed are resolved without Groundspeak getting involved.

 

Of course all this is really not the issue here. In the OPs case, it a appears that a cache owner has chosen to allow a find log for someone who was unable to retrieve a cache. In a similar case that happened to the OP, he felt that this was not a find, so he did not log it as such. The puritans can always argue that cache owners who allow find logs for something short of finding the cache are doing something wrong. The problem here is that the guidelines don't define bogus. The only clarifications we have have seen have to do with couch potato logs and pocket caches. We know that allowing finds for sitting at home and logging caches never visited is a violation of the maintenance guidelines and that caches can be archived if the owner continues to allow this. As it stands now, a cache owner is free to allow some to log a find for going out to a cache and finding it inaccessible.

 

I personally believe that simply lacking as signature (where there is other proof of a find) is not enough to declare a log bogus. But Groundspeak seems to be silent on this issue, thus allowing a the cache owner to determine that a log is bogus if the physical log was not signed.

[mresoteric]

Sign, log on line as found. Does not get much simpler.

 

It's not that simple. The "rules" quoted above said "Share your geocaching stories and photos online."

 

So if we are accepting those "rules" as absolutes, then every online log needs to include a geocaching story and photo. Ignoring Jeremy's stance on blank logs, how many logs have photos? That leaves a whole lot of invalid logs, eh?

[mresoteric]

 

GS longstanding position is that they are reactive rather than proactive when it comes to logs an we as CO's agree to self-police the logs and that they will only get involved as the exception rather than the rule. As such, they do not just scan logs looking for violations.

 

I bet there's much more to it than that. I bet the reason GS doesn't actively police cache logs is because they realise that they can't possibly know the circumstances of every cache. They probably realise that legitimate reasons exist for not being able to sign a cache. They also probably also realise that most cache owners are capable of exercising discretion.

[AZcachemeister]

From the beginning of time, signing the log was the quintessential indicator that the cache was found.

And indeed, part of this website's main function was to keep track of which caches a player had found, and which s/he had yet to find.

 

For a time, there was an aberration that allowed the owner to require more from the finder.

Some thought this was fun, others did not.

That aberration has been eliminated, and NEED NOT be brought into the discussion again.

 

So, in most cases earning a smiley (and claiming a cache as found) was and is left as something between the owner and the finder.

 

I think a lot of these issues would go away if we all realized hunting a cache is actually an interaction with the cache owner, and not some impersonal website.

[mresoteric]

...

, if the OP wanted to log the cache as a find AND the owner accepted the find due to the lid being stuck, then that is allowed as well. The guidelines do not prohibit such a find.

No they don't.

 

But it does not change how cheesy that 'find' is either.

 

Actually, the OP did not claim a find. I didn't mean to give that impression. The OP is complaining because someone else did so.

 

Basically it's up to the cacher and the owner, unless the log was signed.

[mresoteric]

I personally believe that simply lacking as signature (where there is other proof of a find) is not enough to declare a log bogus. But Groundspeak seems to be silent on this issue, thus allowing a the cache owner to determine that a log is bogus if the physical log was not signed.

 

I see it slightly different. I think GS allows cache owners to determine what logs are legitimate, but the signed log stands as absolute protection for the finder. Even this isn't absolute. I imagine if a finder was to admit to someone else signing his name that GS would support deletion of such a log.

[mresoteric]

I think a lot of these issues would go away if we all realized hunting a cache is actually an interaction with the cache owner, and not some impersonal website.

 

+1

[+jellis]

Its just like logging your own hides. I have been seeing more and more cachers doing it. "found my cache" "placement crew" The ones I adopted of course I had to have found it and mine I adopted out I then log it with the new owners approval. But if I get the cache back I delete the find log.

Edited May 9, 2011 by jellis

[+Take A Hike!]

So simple. No Sign = No find. No excuses, log a note.

[mresoteric]

So simple. No Sign = No find. No excuses, log a note.

 

If it's so simple, then why does this topic keep coming up?

[+StarBrand]

So simple. No Sign = No find. No excuses, log a note.

 

If it's so simple, then why does this topic keep coming up?

 

I don't know - why do some folks such as yourself keep trying to make it more complex?? Sign the log and then log online - seems really simple to me.

[+tozainamboku]

From the beginning of time, signing the log was the quintessential indicator that the cache was found.

I don't believe that signing the log is quintessential to anything. It just so happens that when Dave Ulmert hid the first cache he put a log book in it and he asked the finders to write about their experience in the log. I suspect that Dave was following the model of the summit log a hiker may sign when he climbs a mountain, or the guest book you might sign when you visit certain historic sites. Just as signing the summit log is not required to say that you climbed a mountain or signing a guest book is not required to say you visited an historic site, neither is signing the log book a requirement for saying you found a geocache.

 

And indeed, part of this website's main function was to keep track of which caches a player had found, and which s/he had yet to find.

And this is the rub. Because one of the functions of the online found log is to keep track of which caches you have found, there is an issue about people falsely claiming to have found a cache. Particularly for those who treat the find count as a score, the idea of someone claiming finds they are not entitled to becomes a serious issue. Even if you don't view the find count as score, however, there are reasons to want to discourage the use of the online find in ways that are bogus. Cache owners are told to delete bogus logs. This now means we need a definition for a legitimate find. A simplistic definition is that you have only found the cache if you sign the log. This may work for some people, but most people prefer a somewhat more flexible approach to account for problems they feel are not fundamental to finding a cache. Pens leak, dry out, or get lost. Log books get too wet to write in. Caches become inaccessible due to weather conditions or muggles. Each cacher may have a different level of what they will claim as find or not. In most cases, even a cache owner who personally will only log an online find if they sign the log, will accept these logs. Of course, if the cache owner intended you to climb a tree, they aren't so likely to let you claim a find because you saw the cache but didn't want to climb.

 

This game is supposed to be simple and fun, but by enforcing a narrow definition of a find you tend to appear to more interested in a perceive propriety for claiming a find than is whether someone had fun. History is full of examples of groups whose perception of propriety led they to take extreme actions against those who felt that life was to be enjoyed. Perhaps that is why I sometimes use the 'p' word to describe them.

Edited May 9, 2011 by tozainamboku

[mresoteric]

So simple. No Sign = No find. No excuses, log a note.

 

If it's so simple, then why does this topic keep coming up?

 

I don't know - why do some folks such as yourself keep trying to make it more complex?? Sign the log and then log online - seems really simple to me.

 

Because sometimes it is a bit more complex than sign the log and then log online. But you and others continue to perpetuate the myth that it is always that cut and dry.

[+sbell111]

Who's twisting anything? Everything you just said is true.

 

But, if the OP wanted to log the cache as a find AND the owner accepted the find due to the lid being stuck, then that is allowed as well. The guidelines do not prohibit such a find.

 

If you check the OP, they were asking if they SHOULD, to which common sense dictates the correct response would be no. My point was that if the CO decided to comply with the guidelines they agreed to when they posted the cache and delete bogus and fraudulent logs, they would be supported by GS.

 

GS longstanding position is that they are reactive rather than proactive when it comes to logs an we as CO's agree to self-police the logs and that they will only get involved as the exception rather than the rule. As such, they do not just scan logs looking for violations.

I think that you are using a non-standard definition of 'found'. You see, signing the log isn't what finding a cache is. You find the cache and then you sign the log to leave evidence of the find. A cache owner is required to accept this log signature as evidence of the find and allow an online 'find' log. In the absence of a signature in the physical logbook, the cache owner is free to determine whether a find was made.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

So simple. No Sign = No find. No excuses, log a note.

 

If it's so simple, then why does this topic keep coming up?

Some people are so cheap they want something for nothing.

[+sbell111]

So simple. No Sign = No find. No excuses, log a note.

 

If it's so simple, then why does this topic keep coming up?

Some people are so cheap they want something for nothing.

I can only assume that you posted to the wrong thread (board?).

[+kpanko]

I think that you are using a non-standard definition of 'found'.

Maybe we need to agree that we are not actually finding geocaches, but rather finding log books or sheets.

 

Finding the cache container might not be good enough, for example when the container is brightly colored but 30 feet up in a tree. Or when the container is locked because a puzzle must be solved to open it. Or when the container is a decoy with a note inside that says "keep looking!"

 

Let's call it geologging. Then everybody will understand that we are actually looking for log books.

 

Or that we are loggers. I'm a lumberjack and I'm okay . . .

[+StarBrand]

So simple. No Sign = No find. No excuses, log a note.

 

If it's so simple, then why does this topic keep coming up?

 

I don't know - why do some folks such as yourself keep trying to make it more complex?? Sign the log and then log online - seems really simple to me.

 

Because sometimes it is a bit more complex than sign the log and then log online. But you and others continue to perpetuate the myth that it is always that cut and dry.

 

Must be much more often than 'sometimes' --- because it is often portrayed as the norm. (((insert smirky sarcasm here)))

 

Look - I get it - there are some rare circumstances where a photo or other form of proof needs offered for some owners. But I don't think anybody would deny an online log where alternate proof was offered. What upsets me is the assertion that any cache owner can decide to accept anything they want as a legit find. I know the system allows it - but I do not think you will find any such wording in any guideline or any piece of this website anywhere. To continue to argue that a legit 'find' is solely between a CO and somebody logging online is just a silly notion. You do actually have to find the cache and do your best to sign the log. It is the intent of this silly little activity of ours. it is flatly stated in 'the rules'. No matter how many COs start accepting any weird passerby as a legit find - that just is not what is expected. I see it as fact.

 

.....and I strongly suspect at heart - you know that to be a fact as well.

Edited May 9, 2011 by StarBrand

[+kpanko]

Must be much more often than 'sometimes' --- because it is often portrayed as the norm.

The norm? I thought it was "when the container is frozen closed" or "the log book has melted and therefore cannot be signed." That is not the norm.

 

Yes, you cannot really say that the decision of the CO is the only thing that matters. I have heard about virtual caches that were being logged by all kinds of random people who had clearly never been to the site, and these caches were archived and locked. I suppose this happened because the CO "decided" to not care. The site admins had to step in and do something to stop the armchair logging.

 

If a CO wanted to get a bigger number next to his name, he could "hide" a cache, then "find" it a few hundred times. The system would not prevent it, but most of us can agree that would be cheating, pointless, and lame.

[+tozainamboku]

What upsets me is the assertion that any cache owner can decide to accept anything they want as a legit find. I know the system allows it - but I do not think you will find any such wording in any guideline or any piece of this website anywhere. To continue to argue that a legit 'find' is solely between a CO and somebody logging online is just a silly notion. You do actually have to find the cache and do your best to sign the log. It is the intent of this silly little activity of ours. it is flatly stated in 'the rules'.

I don't think anyone asserts that a cache owner can accept any log. Groundspeak clearly reserves the right to take action when cache owners allow "abuse" of the logging system. We know of specific instances where listings have been archived because a cache owner invited or encouraged bogus logs. But cache owners clearly have more latitude that you seem to want to admit. No cache owner is ever required to check the physical log against the online log. If someone were to log that they found the cache and kept silent over whether they actually signed the log, it seems clear that a cache owner could simply let the log stand. It only makes sense to me that if the cacher was honest and explains the reason that he didn't sign the log that a cache owner should be able to allow that log to stand as well. Cache owners seem quite free in being able to decide what excuse for not signing is allowed. I see all the time where cache owners allow a find because the cache was missing. While this makes no sense to me personally, it happens so often that I conclude it is not seen as an abuse of the system.

 

I agree that the intent is find the geocache and to sign the log when you have found it. Instructions on how to play the game seem pretty clear on this. However the instructions and guidelines for using the online logging system are not so clear. The instructions only say to share your experience with others. This seems to apply whether you found the cache or not. The guidelines state you can log a find online once you have signed the physical log, but as has been discussed often this has to do with preventing cache owners from deleting logs due to ALRs rather than making signing a requirement for logging a find. Other than this there is nothing that says what a cache owner can or cannot accept for an online find and what Groundspeak considers abuse. So far the only examples are where Groundspeak has given a clear sign are couch potato logs and certain so-called pocket caches.

[mresoteric]

I see all the time where cache owners allow a find because the cache was missing. While this makes no sense to me personally, it happens so often that I conclude it is not seen as an abuse of the system.

 

I understand using this example because it seems to happen a lot. But this is one I don't understand either. I kind of think it is an abuse of the system in this case because the cache was not actually found.

 

I'm more in line with Starbrand's last post as I do think in most cases the log should be signed. I just don't agree with the way many seem to think it is cut and dry, no sign = no find in every case. There are just so many reasons why a finder would be justified in logging a find when he couldn't sign the log. And if the CO agrees with the reason, then it's really not my place (or anyone else's) to question it.

[+StarBrand]

See - I knew we were all basically on the same page.

Edited May 9, 2011 by StarBrand