find or no find

[+Coldgears]

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.

At the same time, if one feels as though they don't want to log it, it is in there right to do so. It all works out in the end.

[+GeoGeeBee]

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 wouldn't claim a find under those circumstances, but I'd allow one to be claimed on one of my hides. If the idea of the hide was to bring you to a cool spot, and I brought you to that cool spot, but you couldn't sign the log because it was gone... well, if you convince me you were at the right spot, and if you really want the smiley, I don't have a problem with it.

[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 wouldn't claim a find under those circumstances, but I'd allow one to be claimed on one of my hides. If the idea of the hide was to bring you to a cool spot, and I brought you to that cool spot, but you couldn't sign the log because it was gone... well, if you convince me you were at the right spot, and if you really want the smiley, I don't have a problem with it.

 

And as the CO, I think you are within your rights to allow it. I just can't argue for it since I don't really think that is a find, even though I would probably say whatever too.

[+DanOCan]

"It depends."

 

If I find the cache but can't sign the log and offer some other form of proof to the CO then I don't see a problem. If I start claiming random finds because I drive past a cache and spotted the bush it is in from my car THEN I have a problem. If I don't climb a tree but spot the cache from the ground I don't count it as a find. If I am with someone else and they climb the tree and pass the cache down to me then I'll take it as a find.

 

Again: "It depends."

[+sbell111]

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 . . .

Regarding the bolded bit, whether or not any of these are 'good enough' is a decision to be made solely by the cache owner. If the cache owner believes that seeing his cache is 'good enough', then it is fine for an online 'find' log to be entered.

 

In reality, I suspect that most owners of tree caches, locked caches, and decoy caches are going to want seekers to actually access the cache, so they are unlikely to allow a find for an unsigned log. That is also their right.

[+tozainamboku]

In reality, I suspect that most owners of tree caches, locked caches, and decoy caches are going to want seekers to actually access the cache, so they are unlikely to allow a find for an unsigned log. That is also their right.

 

Part of the problem that owners of these cache have when you say it is up to the owner, is that they believe many cachers will not attempt to retrieve/open their caches and will simply log a find. Then they (the owner) will be forced to play the bad guy and delete the log. They prefer that finders be told that the physical log must be signed so they don't have to delete someone's log.

 

I think the problem is the other way around. Most caches do not have some particular challenge that needs to be met to retrieve or open the cache. Finding the cache involves using the GPS to navigate to the location and then finding the container. Once you find it, opening it and signing the log is not very challenging. What happens is that from time to time, retrieving, opening, or signing the log becomes a challenge that the owner did not intend. Weather, muggles, or equipment malfunction are just a few of the things that might get in the way of signing the physical log. Most of the time the cache owner and the finder can agree that the cache can be logged as find.

 

A puritan approach that tells cachers there is a rule that you have to sign denies this option to both cache owners and finders. Understanding that an online find log is simply a cacher sharing their experience and not some official score or a reward given out by the cache owner is a first step to a rational approach to deleting logs. A cache owner who believes that the find was bogus or that the finder did not make a reasonable attempt to retrieve and sign the physical log is certainly within their rights to delete a find.

[+baloo&bd]

What happens is that from time to time, retrieving, opening, or signing the log becomes a challenge that the owner did not intend. Weather, muggles, or equipment malfunction are just a few of the things that might get in the way of signing the physical log. Most of the time the cache owner and the finder can agree that the cache can be logged as find.

 

A puritan approach that tells cachers there is a rule that you have to sign denies this option to both cache owners and finders. Understanding that an online find log is simply a cacher sharing their experience and not some official score or a reward given out by the cache owner is a first step to a rational approach to deleting logs. A cache owner who believes that the find was bogus or that the finder did not make a reasonable attempt to retrieve and sign the physical log is certainly within their rights to delete a find.

 

None of the things listed are cause for not signing the log.

 

If the main reason someone is logging online, they can also do it via a note. This signature thing is not that complicated. With out it is no better than Waymarking. I think we can all agree we don't want GC to turn into a similar wasteland.

 

EDIT: last sentence missing key words. sorry.

Edited May 11, 2011 by baloo&bd

[+kpanko]

I think we can all agree GC to turn into a similar wasteland.

No.