Do you care if someone logs a find on one of your caches, but doesn't sign the log?

July 12, 2011

What if they logged 10 finds without signing? Would you delete the logs? Contact the cacher to ask for an explanation? Do nothing?

Story behind the questions: Recently a prolific cacher flew to paradise and logged what seemed to us (& a few other locals) an unrealistic number of finds over a short period of time. The logs were all generic "found on vacation" cut & paste jobs. Being curious, several of us checked on caches near our home coordinates. In this spot check of 20 caches we found one signature, (in a cache without a writing implement.) We also saw a tb they dropped in another cache, though they did not sign the paper log. Being generous, they actually have found 10% of the caches they logged. We suspect they found a few caches, but logged finds on many more that they "drove by."

Anyone else have similar experiences? How did you handle it? We deleted their finds on our caches.

jrr

11.6k · July 12, 2011

Anyone else have similar experiences? How did you handle it? We deleted their finds on our caches.

If they at least do an interesting online log, I don't think it's that big a deal. You could delete, not delete, or just decide on a cache by cache basis. If there's no signature, it's at the COs discretion.

If it's very obviously an incorrectly logged cache, which could cause confusion, delete it. I once posted a find on the wrong cache and the CO was able to tell by the online log that I was at the wrong spot.

2.1k · July 12, 2011

As a cache owner, you have the right to delete finds on your caches if the log is not signed.

I can't imagine getting so concerned over another person's logging practices that I would compile statistics on them, though. And I can't begin to imagine being so concerned as to get together with several other people to "check up" on them.

Seriously, it's hard to imagine caring so much about how someone else plays a game when their actions have no effect on me at all.

1.4k · July 12, 2011

I care that someone doesn't sign the physical log, but I will not go out of my way to check.

SS

3.2k · July 12, 2011

Recently I did a cache and based on the logbook was the first finder in over a year. When I checked on line there was a find recorded a couple months before I was there. Bet it happens a lot more than we realize.

July 12, 2011

I agree that the log should be signed, if I am not mistaking that is one of Groundspeak's rules. I also agree that I am not one that is going out of my way to check but if I were to notice while doing maintenance that there were bad logs I would correct them. As for something I noticed though is also check dates as the names don't always match. We had new cachers around here that were signing the log with their real names and when logging on-line were using their geo-ID. I happened to run into them at a cache and let them know what issues that may cause for some CO's. That is why I mention if you are a log checker to also check dates not just names.

July 12, 2011

We gave up being micro managers of our cache logs about a year ago. My "play" time outside of work is too valuable to spend scrutinizing the cache logs v. the online logs. I've only deleted a found log once because of no cache log signature, and in retrospect I would have handled it differently as to not cause the natural angst that occurs when that happens.

About the only time I will delete a log now is if I see that a person logged the cache multiple times. Usually stuff like that is caused by a twitchy thumb on a "smart" phone app or someone extremely new. I'll always leave the first one though. But if someone wants to pretend like they've blown through town and logged all of our caches in an hour, just to rack up gobs of smileys more power to them. They have to live with the lie on their stat count, not me.

July 12, 2011

Devil's advocate : arthritis can be a pita from what I hear.

*shrugs*

what they do doesn't impact how I play the game, so yeah, whatever really. Not worth my time...

3.8k · July 12, 2011

I care that someone doesn't sign the physical log, but I will not go out of my way to check.

SS

Ditto. And if you're dumb enough to admit you didn't sign my log, outside of tremendous circumstances, be prepared for a deleted log.

3.8k · July 12, 2011

We gave up being micro managers of our cache logs about a year ago.

Logs on my high star caches get more scrutiny but again, I do not actively audit my caches unless I sense an urgent need.

3.1k · July 12, 2011

What if they logged 10 finds without signing? Would you delete the logs? Contact the cacher to ask for an explanation? Do nothing?

Story behind the questions: Recently a prolific cacher flew to paradise and logged what seemed to us (& a few other locals) an unrealistic number of finds over a short period of time. The logs were all generic "found on vacation" cut & paste jobs. Being curious, several of us checked on caches near our home coordinates. In this spot check of 20 caches we found one signature, (in a cache without a writing implement.) We also saw a tb they dropped in another cache, though they did not sign the paper log. Being generous, they actually have found 10% of the caches they logged. We suspect they found a few caches, but logged finds on many more that they "drove by."

Anyone else have similar experiences? How did you handle it? We deleted their finds on our caches.

jrr

It depends on the cache for me. I do check my logbooks from time to time. But when it comes to deleting an online log, I usually think about it first. If I see a pattern from a cacher in my area that logs online but doesn't sign a logbook, I take notice. And if they log a find on my cache, but not in the logbook, I'll email them to ask them to sign the physical logbook. Having only done this a couple of times, I have rarely heard a peep back from those cachers, and so I've deleted their online log. Only one person actually responded, and admitted that they needed the D/T for a Fizzy. So I deleted the find and they came back and found it and relogged physically a few weeks later.

I guess all of that is to say, contact anyone you "catch" doing so, and it is up to you if you want to delete a log or not based on their response.

However, if I created a sock puppet right now, how long would it take for me to get 12,000 finds? Of those, how many would I get an email from an owner wondering what's up? And of all of the logs, how many would get deleted? Interesting to think about. Hmm.... :lostsignal:

July 12, 2011

....

However, if I created a sock puppet right now, how long would it take for me to get 12,000 finds? Of those, how many would I get an email from an owner wondering what's up? And of all of the logs, how many would get deleted? Interesting to think about. Hmm....

Exactly! We live in a place where most of the finds on our caches are by visitors. We've had lots of finds by folks who didn't sign the log, some have taken pictures or contacted us, most have simply said they didn't have a pen. (How you can leave your hotel, full of free pens and set out on a day of caching without any sort of writing implement is another story, but I digress...) We have learned to let this sort of thing go, hey vacations are meant for fun we know, we take them ourselves.

But the question for the "live & let live" "those fake finds aren't hurting me" posters is there some tipping point that would get to you? Could you ever imagine the need to call someone on their "finds?"

BTW that point on Oahu is log a couple hundred finds over as many days without ever once mentioning anything about the amazing views/scenery/tricky hide/great camo of any of the caches. Plus log a find on an easy cache by a trail head on the same day as a dozen locals hiked the trail but couldn't find that cache. Just sayin...

jrr

19k · July 12, 2011

I care that someone doesn't sign the physical log, but I will not go out of my way to check.

SS

Ditto. And if you're dumb enough to admit you didn't sign my log, outside of tremendous circumstances, be prepared for a deleted log.

It would appear to be a bunch of caches, not just one or two. Discovering something like that would probably raise my ire enough to do something about it. After all, the cache owner's guidelines to say that we are to weed out logs that appear to be bogus, and these sure do appear to fit the definition.

Edited July 12, 2011 by knowschad

9.3k · July 12, 2011

Do you care if someone logs a find on one of your caches, but doesn't sign the log?

No. It's just not necessary for me to control how others choose to interpret "Found".

I hold two entirely contradictory mindsets regarding signatures in logs.

On one hand, I will not log a find on a cache unless my mark is somewhere on the log. Cache out of reach? Cache muggled? Cache strewn across the grass by a lawn mower? Cache rusted shut? Cache frozen shut? Cache surrounded by mutant zombie space aliens? I don't care. In my eyes, it's not a find unless I have signed the log. Early in my caching career, I thought that was a universal belief, but in reading these forums, I've learned that this is not the case. There are as many definitions of "Found" as there are cachers. And I'm OK with that. If someone logs a find on one of my caches, I assume that they have met their personal definition of "Found" and leave it at that.

38.2k · July 12, 2011

If someone forgot to sign or forgot their pen, no big deal to me. I'll take him at his word that he found the cache. If someone makes a habit of "forgetting" and I have reason to believe that he is a phony - DELETE!

4.2k · July 12, 2011

I care that someone doesn't sign the physical log, but I will not go out of my way to check.

SS

Ditto. And if you're dumb enough to admit you didn't sign my log, outside of tremendous circumstances, be prepared for a deleted log.

This is one of those times we agree again.

18.9k · July 12, 2011

No hesitation on my part - if I discovered there was no physical signature in the on site log - I'd fire off an email asking for details and if I failed to get an adequate response quickly - I'd delete the log(s). Not that I go searching for such things without cause - but upon discovery - that is how I would handle it.

July 12, 2011

It's really not a big deal to me if somebody doesn't sign the physical log. People sometimes might forget a pen or the pencil broke. I'll take their word for it.

July 12, 2011

Id just be happy if somebody went to look for my cache.

Id email them and ask what the cache looked like. If they didnt respond, or didnt know.....delete.

July 13, 2011

I agree with many of the posters here that life is too short to go check every time you suspect that there is a bogus log. But in this case it is not a onesie or twosie, it is cheating on a massive scale. This couple logged 60 (!!!) caches in one day. That is a huge red flag. The local cachers know that is not possible based on driving time alone, much less the time to find the caches, potty breaks, lunch etc. You can say, so what, it is just a game. Yes, but in every game there are rules. What if you discovered that there was massive cheating going on in the NFL, NBA or American League baseball? Would you just blow it off as being just a game? I doubt it. When the Oahu cachers saw the inordinate number of caches logged by this couple, a few people decided to do a spot check and sure enough, most were bogus. To me this is the worst of geocaching. Someone who has forgotten what the game is about and is just going for the numbers. Probably along the way deluding themselves and others into thinking that they are really super cachers.

Edited July 13, 2011 by Etoa Nrish

7.9k · July 13, 2011

Actually I do care.

I put that log in the cache for one reason...

Well, actually two reasons, and one of them is that this site REQUIRES a signable log in the cache.

Why do you suppose that is?

2.8k · July 13, 2011

I'd drop them an email, asking about it, and see how they respond. Then act accordingly.

The "I forgot my pen" excuse probably wouldn't fly with me for 60 caches, especially if they claim to have been caching all over the island. I know for a fact there are a few places one can buy a pen on Oahu.

And I can vouch for Eota's comment about drive times. This is no RT 66 or ET Highway situation. It can take a couple of hours to go from Waikiki to the North Shore even without stoping for caches, the shrimp truck, looking at honu or grabbing some Shave Ice.

9.3k · July 13, 2011

...it is cheating on a massive scale.

Just to be clear. It's not cheating. Not even on a small scale.

Lying? Maybe. Bogus? Probably. Cheating? Sorry. 'Tis not the case.

Yes, but in every game there are rules.

Not really. Here, we have guidelines. Not rules.

The difference? Guidelines have flexibility. Rules, not so much.

Given a choice, in a game like this one, I'll take guidelines over rules any day.

What if you discovered that there was massive cheating going on in the NFL, NBA or American League baseball?

Seriously? You are equating not signing a soggy log in a film can, with a spectator sport with millions of dollars at stake? Really? I think this says more about you than it says about the folks who play the game differently than you. Sorry Brother, but that comparison is so fraught with hyperbole as to defy logic.

Someone who has forgotten what the game is about and is just going for the numbers.

For some, the game is all about the numbers. While I don't quite understand the mentality that quantity trumps quality, I recognize that those folks are having fun, playing the game they want to play. Deriding others because they don't follow, precisely, your method of play, seems a bit harsh.

4.2k · July 13, 2011

What if you discovered that there was massive cheating going on in the NFL, NBA or American League baseball?

You can't discover what is widely known to be true.

10.2k · July 13, 2011

I agree with many of the posters here that life is too short to go check every time you suspect that there is a bogus log. But in this case it is not a onesie or twosie, it is cheating on a massive scale. This couple logged 60 (!!!) caches in one day. That is a huge red flag. The local cachers know that is not possible based on driving time alone, much less the time to find the caches, potty breaks, lunch etc. You can say, so what, it is just a game. Yes, but in every game there are rules. What if you discovered that there was massive cheating going on in the NFL, NBA or American League baseball? Would you just blow it off as being just a game? I doubt it. When the Oahu cachers saw the inordinate number of caches logged by this couple, a few people decided to do a spot check and sure enough, most were bogus. To me this is the worst of geocaching. Someone who has forgotten what the game is about and is just going for the numbers. Probably along the way deluding themselves and others into thinking that they are really super cachers.

This is a very nice post, I'll have to agree. If it seemed like an impossible feat, and you're active in the local Geocaching community, I can see all getting together and talking about it, and investigating further. This is pretty much what happened (all over the Country) with the Oculus Prime account, who logged about 3,000 bogus drive-by finds before the account was wiped clean by Groundspeak.

So yeah, people are free to pontificate with "they can play how they want to", "it doesn't affect me", "it's not hurting anyone" etc.... but Groundspeak did in fact wipe clean a 3,000 mostly bogus find account a couple years ago.

Nice Join date, Etoa Nrish. Looks like I beat you by 120 or so accounts though. Newbie. :lol:

July 13, 2011

I agree with many of the posters here that life is too short to go check every time you suspect that there is a bogus log. But in this case it is not a onesie or twosie, it is cheating on a massive scale. This couple logged 60 (!!!) caches in one day. That is a huge red flag. The local cachers know that is not possible based on driving time alone, much less the time to find the caches, potty breaks, lunch etc. You can say, so what, it is just a game. Yes, but in every game there are rules. What if you discovered that there was massive cheating going on in the NFL, NBA or American League baseball? Would you just blow it off as being just a game? I doubt it. When the Oahu cachers saw the inordinate number of caches logged by this couple, a few people decided to do a spot check and sure enough, most were bogus. To me this is the worst of geocaching. Someone who has forgotten what the game is about and is just going for the numbers. Probably along the way deluding themselves and others into thinking that they are really super cachers.

One thing I'd like to point out, saying you can't get 60 caches in a day without cheating is a FAR off statement. I've done 158 in a day with three other people with me and we all signed each log (no splitting up to log finds). Did 44 on foot by myself on a trail and could have easily have snagged another 30 had I wanted to. The amount in a day should not dictate whether they are cheating or not.

And your analogy with the professional teams is an interesting one. The biggest thing with cheating in those leagues is that those are professional sports, and money is involved for the teams, players, managers, owners, etc. The scale is FAR larger than with geocaching. Realistically, there is no "score" with geocaching and having a high find count does not gain you anything other than being able to "say" you've found all those caches. Me having a higher find count does not make me "better" than someone else but I do know people who view it that way.

At first I cared about people who didn't sign my logs but now, it is rare that I delete a log because I know they didn't sign it. I have way too little time as it is to police how others play the game. If they want to delude themselves by claiming to have found caches when they really didn't, that's up to them. I should not let how others play the game affect how I enjoy the sport.

The only exception I would make is if someone logged a find on a cache that I know I had spent a CONSIDERABLE amount of time working on and they just claimed it without doing it and signing the log. In those RARE cases (hasn't happened yet), I'd consider checking the physical log sheet and then deleting the log if their name was missing.

6.1k · July 13, 2011

I care that someone doesn't sign the physical log, but I will not go out of my way to check.

SS

Ditto. And if you're dumb enough to admit you didn't sign my log, outside of tremendous circumstances, be prepared for a deleted log.

This is one of those times we agree again.

Well I'll disagree.

If someone openly announces that they didn't sign the log, I'll allow the find. I don't see any reason not to, as they are not hiding anything.

If I find out from other sources then it looks suspicious. At that point I wonder how often that they do that, and will be much more likely to delete.

2.8k · July 13, 2011

One thing I'd like to point out, saying you can't get 60 caches in a day without cheating is a FAR off statement. I've done 158 in a day with three other people with me and we all signed each log (no splitting up to log finds). Did 44 on foot by myself on a trail and could have easily have snagged another 30 had I wanted to. The amount in a day should not dictate whether they are cheating or not.

I think Etoa was pointing out that the list of caches that were claimed to have been found were a highly unrealistic set of caches to do in a single day, on Oahu. People have done hundreds in a single day, along "numbers trails". I do not know which string of caches were being claimed, but driving all over Oahu and trying to claim caches in say Waikiki, Diamond Head, Mokapuu and the North Shore in a single day would be very difficult to do.

July 13, 2011

In my opinion, as a cache-finder, but not yet as a cache-hider...

The sport is called GeoCaching, not Geo-SemiAccuratePositioning-ofLocatingSomewhereThatMightHideSomething-ThatYouareLookingFor.

The rules state:

1. If you take something from the geocache (or "cache"), leave something of equal or greater value.

2. Write about your find in the cache logbook.

3. Log your experience at www.geocaching.com.

If it were as simple as Geo-Drive-by-PointingatSomethingThatMightBeHidden I'd have a lot more than my probably-paltry-to-some 46 finds.

I know where a good 20-30 more are in my area, but haven't yet gone out to find them.

Just because I know where the cache is for GC2P33E or GC2CVQF for example, doesn't mean I'm going to hop onto the website until it's found.

Even though I know where a good dozen or more caches are, that have been placed by my co-Zombies, I'm not going to log them.

As I've stated in another post of mine, I won't log it as found until I put pen to log paper.

July 13, 2011

One thing I'd like to point out, saying you can't get 60 caches in a day without cheating is a FAR off statement. I've done 158 in a day with three other people with me and we all signed each log (no splitting up to log finds). Did 44 on foot by myself on a trail and could have easily have snagged another 30 had I wanted to. The amount in a day should not dictate whether they are cheating or not.

I think Etoa was pointing out that the list of caches that were claimed to have been found were a highly unrealistic set of caches to do in a single day, on Oahu. People have done hundreds in a single day, along "numbers trails". I do not know which string of caches were being claimed, but driving all over Oahu and trying to claim caches in say Waikiki, Diamond Head, Mokapuu and the North Shore in a single day would be very difficult to do.

Maybe the island folks have a different idea of land scale and distance then we continent folks.

Oahu is only about 597 sq/miles.

To put that into a personal perspective; I am going caching tomorrow in just 20 of the 92 counties in Indiana. Just that area alone is about 7996 sq/miles. That is over 13 times larger then Oahu. The caches I plan on getting have an average distance between each one of over 8 miles so it is no way shape or form a numbers-trail. If we were after just numbers we could get easily 60 caches on this trip. Heck we could get 60 by lunch if we pushed hard and wanted to cache that way.

I am not posting this to boast of numbers, distance or caching ability or to imply anything about how someone else might cache. Just more to point out what may seem unrealistic to some is a slow day to others.

One person says no way you could get 60 caches all over Oahu in a day. You had to cheat.

Another persons says cache hunters who like to cache were in a small area with over 800 caches available to find and they only got 60? They must be slackers.

Is either person 'wrong'?

3.1k · July 13, 2011

One person says no way you could get 60 caches all over Oahu in a day. You had to cheat.

Another persons says cache hunters who like to cache were in a small area with over 800 caches available to find and they only got 60? They must be slackers.

Is either person 'wrong'?

It depends on where you are. Clearly. The folks around Oahu know the "trends" of their area, just as I'm sure you see find trends in yours. Apples, oranges.

3.3k · July 13, 2011

I have a cool puzzle cache that requires some work to solve. I ocasionaly audit that log, but my traditional caches, not so much. If I had reason to believe someone faked a log, I would check next time I was near the cache, but I don't get too conserned.

Always remember - Don't make cache hunters angry. They know where your caches are. I had an ammo box get stolen shortly after I deleted a bogus log. May or may not be related, but I started being a little more cautious.

1.4k · July 13, 2011

I'm more concerned about not logging any finds I didn't find than about deleting armchair logs. Having said that, my only cache is still on its first logbook, so when that finishes I might compare the paper and online logs, and see what it turns up. It will be interesting to see. There is a possibility that I have waxed lyrical in some bigger logbooks about the caching experience and then completely missed putting 'Fianccetto' with it, and not realised. Mr F pointed out that I was doing that last summer and had to remind me to put our name in the book once or twice. So I'm not going to be too much of a stick in the mud about it.

2.8k · July 13, 2011

One thing I'd like to point out, saying you can't get 60 caches in a day without cheating is a FAR off statement. I've done 158 in a day with three other people with me and we all signed each log (no splitting up to log finds). Did 44 on foot by myself on a trail and could have easily have snagged another 30 had I wanted to. The amount in a day should not dictate whether they are cheating or not.

I think Etoa was pointing out that the list of caches that were claimed to have been found were a highly unrealistic set of caches to do in a single day, on Oahu. People have done hundreds in a single day, along "numbers trails". I do not know which string of caches were being claimed, but driving all over Oahu and trying to claim caches in say Waikiki, Diamond Head, Mokapuu and the North Shore in a single day would be very difficult to do.

Maybe the island folks have a different idea of land scale and distance then we continent folks.

Oahu is only about 597 sq/miles.

To put that into a personal perspective; I am going caching tomorrow in just 20 of the 92 counties in Indiana. Just that area alone is about 7996 sq/miles. That is over 13 times larger then Oahu. The caches I plan on getting have an average distance between each one of over 8 miles so it is no way shape or form a numbers-trail. If we were after just numbers we could get easily 60 caches on this trip. Heck we could get 60 by lunch if we pushed hard and wanted to cache that way.

I am not posting this to boast of numbers, distance or caching ability or to imply anything about how someone else might cache. Just more to point out what may seem unrealistic to some is a slow day to others.

One person says no way you could get 60 caches all over Oahu in a day. You had to cheat.

Another persons says cache hunters who like to cache were in a small area with over 800 caches available to find and they only got 60? They must be slackers.

Is either person 'wrong'?

You are comparing apples to oranges.

I live on an island that's ~15mi x 5mi at the widest/longest points (toal of 38sq mi), and depending on which 60 caches were claimed, I'd have a pretty good idea if they actually found them all, or some tall tales were being told. I know my area.

Indiana is probably a little flatter than Oahu. The roads are probably nice straight country roads. No volcanoes or harbors or ridge lines to go over or around or through. Those kind of things make it harder to go from point A to Point B. I've cached many times on Oahu, and have felt the pain.

If the locals (and I know a good number them) say that it is highly unlikely that the caches in questions were all found in a single day, and they checked a good number of them and found they had no signatures, I too would question the validity of the cacher's claims.

July 13, 2011

...it is cheating on a massive scale.

Just to be clear. It's not cheating. Not even on a small scale.

Lying? Maybe. Bogus? Probably. Cheating? Sorry. 'Tis not the case.

Yes, but in every game there are rules.

Not really. Here, we have guidelines. Not rules.

The difference? Guidelines have flexibility. Rules, not so much.

Given a choice, in a game like this one, I'll take guidelines over rules any day.

What if you discovered that there was massive cheating going on in the NFL, NBA or American League baseball?

Seriously? You are equating not signing a soggy log in a film can, with a spectator sport with millions of dollars at stake? Really? I think this says more about you than it says about the folks who play the game differently than you. Sorry Brother, but that comparison is so fraught with hyperbole as to defy logic.

Someone who has forgotten what the game is about and is just going for the numbers.

For some, the game is all about the numbers. While I don't quite understand the mentality that quantity trumps quality, I recognize that those folks are having fun, playing the game they want to play. Deriding others because they don't follow, precisely, your method of play, seems a bit harsh.

OK, everyone has a different opinion on this. Then I would ask just one fundamental question. Exactly what is the game? What is geocaching? It started out with a bucket of stuff hidden in the woods and a challange for other people to find it using their GPS. So, at it's core, geocaching is hiding caches for other people to find and finding caches that other people have hidden, using a GPS. That's the game. So people who are going around logging caches they haven't found are not geocaching. They are playing some other game but it is not geocaching. If I don't have the cache in hand and sign the soggy log in the film canister or the obnoxious nano I don't claim a find. So, I am going to go on geocaching. All of those other folks who want to do drive by finds or go for the numbers can go on playing whatever other game they are playing just don't call it geocaching.

Edited July 13, 2011 by Etoa Nrish

8k · July 13, 2011

What if you discovered that there was massive cheating going on in the NFL, NBA or American League baseball?

You can't discover what is widely known to be true.

No, we only know there is cheating in the NHL and National League baseball. which is why they weren't mentioned above.

19k · July 13, 2011

It's really not a big deal to me if somebody doesn't sign the physical log. People sometimes might forget a pen or the pencil broke. I'll take their word for it.

Its pretty clear, if you read the OP, that this is not simply a case of somebody that forgot their pen.

2.4k · July 13, 2011

I had a couple of logs saying could not sign as log was full. Went to check on the cache, there were plenty of spaces where an abbreviated signature could have been squeezed in, also the reverse of the sheet was only 2/3 full. I didn't delete the logs, but sent a friendly note explaining how they could have signed and that other CO's may delete logs in the absence of a signature. Also thanked them for letting me know the log was getting full. All were new cachers and thanked me for allowing their logs to stand and explaining things.

July 13, 2011

Keep in mind that even if you play by the rules, others may not...The other day I had to check on a cache and saw 6 or so signatures NOT on the paper log, so I deleted them. 2-3 days later, the cache conveniently disappeared. I suppose it could have been a muggling, but I have my doubts. :yikes:

9.3k · July 13, 2011

Exactly what is the game? What is geocaching?

I think you answered that already, for most of us. All I can do is mirror your definition; "At it's core, geocaching is hiding caches for other people to find and finding caches that other people have hidden, using a GPS." That wraps it up perfectly, for me. Punch in some coords, go to ground zero, find a cache. It's just that simple. Usually...

To address the technical side, the argument changes just a bit. The edges get blurred. When we look at the various activities that are included on the website, defined clearly as geocaching, we see that going to a webcam and capturing your image is geocaching. We also see that eating hotwings is geocaching. Likewise, walking around a sinkhole is geocaching. As is picking litter up in a park. Checking out an historical plaque in the median of a highway is also geocaching.

The existence of webcam caches, events, earthcaches, CITOs and virtuals, teaches us that, according to Groundspeak, geocaching is more than hiding/finding caches. But even if we exclude those types of caches, the edges remain just a bit blurred.

Imagine this hypothetical scenario;

I punch in the coords to one of your caches, and hoof it to ground zero. The cache description tells me I am searching for a Lock & Lock. The hint is a dead giveaway. When I arrive, I find that a bush-hog mower has preceded me, leaving bits of shredded plastic, (including one with the official GC decal), chopped up McToys, half a stash note, and nothing else. I obviously can't sign the log, since it is no longer there, so I photograph my findings, and log it as a find, describing what I saw.

(Not something I would do, as, for me, no signature means I don't claim a find, but this is just a hypothetical situation, so we can stretch things a bit)

You read my log, determine that I did not sign the log, therefor my find is bogus, in your opinion, and you delete my log. I appeal to Groundspeak, sending them my photo of your destroyed cache.

If Groundspeak restored my find, (which I suspect they would, under the circumstances), then they are demonstrating that signing the log is not an absolute requirement for someone who wishes to claim they were geocaching.

Now, change the scenario just a bit;

I get to ground zero, can't find the cache, check the hint, and at the spot where the cache used to reside I find a note, stating something to the effect of, "The Forest Defenders have stolen your cache! Sucks to be you! Ha Ha Ha!" I log my find, including a picture of the site, and you delete it. If Groundspeak restored my find, they would be demonstrating that not even locating any part of a cache is a prerequisite for someone who wants to claim they are geocaching.

I've seen mention of both these examples leading to log restoration, in these forums.

Now, obviously, you believe that the examples I cited were not the case with the folks who swept through your Island, logging caches in record breaking time. You believe that they didn't even stop for some caches, choosing instead to just drive by. If they contested the log deletions, and you were able to show proof that the cache was in place, and their name was not on the logs, Groundspeak might very well side with you.

I am in no way defending their actions, as I happen to concur with your original definition of the game. I'm just pointing out that, since Groundspeak doesn't require that logs be signed in all instances, and they don't require that caches even be found, in all instances, Groundspeak has set a precedent, dictating that your definition of geocaching, (and mine), may be too narrow.

With that in mind, (again stressing that I am not advocating the kind of game those folks were playing), all I suggest is that you don't get so worked up over how others interpret the many varied nuances of this game. Slinging insults, such as "cheater", spewing hyperbole and injecting rhetoric does little to support your cause. You would be much better served by simply playing the game the way you feel it should be played, worrying less about how someone else chooses to play. If you feel a log needs to be deleted, have at it. But do so rationally. Getting mad about it doesn't help.

July 13, 2011

It's really not a big deal to me if somebody doesn't sign the physical log. People sometimes might forget a pen or the pencil broke. I'll take their word for it.

Its pretty clear, if you read the OP, that this is not simply a case of somebody that forgot their pen.

Correct. Thinking more about it, the question I should have asked is this: Do you care if someone logs a find on your cache when they didn't actually even look for it, but they were within 300 ft. of the container? Corallary question: what does it mean to have 10,000 geocache finds if you never "found" more than 1/2 of them?

Looking at the finds of the cachers in question, it's pretty clear that they drove a couple different routes on the island and claimed a find on most every cache within 300 feet (give or take) of the roads they were on. Sometimes they actually geocached (found a container, signed a log, dropped off a tb) but most of the time they just "drove by." And the truth is some of those caches which look like they are close the road are not park & grabs. Access may not be from the closest road, finding the cache may require a hike and/or big change in altitude. It's not that you couldn't find 60 or 100 caches on Oahu in one day, you just couldn't find the ones they logged.

jrr

9.3k · July 13, 2011

Thinking more about it, the question I should have asked is this: Do you care if someone logs a find on your cache when they didn't actually even look for it, but they were within 300 ft. of the container?

No. Not really. They are only depriving themselves of the experience of actually finding my cache. If they are happy playing the game their way, I am unwilling to impose my personal aesthetics on them. At most, I might hide behind my hand, giggling at them at events. Sure, I'd like for them to at least try to find my caches. I tend to place mine in pretty extreme places, as I want to share the unique experiences found in alligator infested swamps. But if they don't, I'm not going to sweat it. Life is too short.

Corallary question: what does it mean to have 10,000 geocache finds if you never "found" more than 1/2 of them?

Absolutely nothing. Except what you allow it to mean, to you. I could program a bot to log finds for me on every cache on the planet, and, (if by some quirk in the space/time continuum Groundspeak failed to nuke my account), I would not win any prize. This is a game where everybody wins, except those few sad folks who feel they must control every aspect of how others play. They generally end up crabby, which is a loss in my book.

Edited July 13, 2011 by Clan Riffster

4.1k · July 13, 2011

Thinking more about it, the question I should have asked is this: Do you care if someone logs a find on your cache when they didn't actually even look for it, but they were within 300 ft. of the container?

I am curious if the local cache owners cared enough to delete the logs.

2.3k · July 13, 2011

To me this is a hobby and not a game. It's not something for me to rack up points in or win. It's something I do in my free time to get me wandering around parts of the woods I wouldn't have probably wandered around. To me it's no more of a game than hiking.

That being said the logs get signed when I go out. When I couldn't see ok I had my mom sign the logs for me. When my friends and I work together one of us signs the logs for all of us. All of which is seen as problematic to the people who want to be ultra literal about guidelines. Sometimes my name is completely not illegible or washed out immediately by the dampness of the log. Or in a week or two gone completely in a soaked log. I was there it got signed but does it really matter in the long run?

But this is something we do for fun as a hobby. I know some people take this very seriously and want people to do it all just like they do but that's not the reality. How they do this doesn't affect me and how I do it doesn't affect them.

You're not going to change the people who don't scribble on the log. You can determine if you're going to let it bother you excessively or if you're just going to get out there and live and let live and find some caches.

July 14, 2011

Thinking more about it, the question I should have asked is this: Do you care if someone logs a find on your cache when they didn't actually even look for it, but they were within 300 ft. of the container?

I am curious if the local cache owners cared enough to delete the logs.

Many of us did. I know I did.

July 14, 2011

Exactly what is the game? What is geocaching?

I think you answered that already, for most of us. All I can do is mirror your definition; "At it's core, geocaching is hiding caches for other people to find and finding caches that other people have hidden, using a GPS." That wraps it up perfectly, for me. Punch in some coords, go to ground zero, find a cache. It's just that simple. Usually...

To address the technical side, the argument changes just a bit. The edges get blurred. When we look at the various activities that are included on the website, defined clearly as geocaching, we see that going to a webcam and capturing your image is geocaching. We also see that eating hotwings is geocaching. Likewise, walking around a sinkhole is geocaching. As is picking litter up in a park. Checking out an historical plaque in the median of a highway is also geocaching.

The existence of webcam caches, events, earthcaches, CITOs and virtuals, teaches us that, according to Groundspeak, geocaching is more than hiding/finding caches. But even if we exclude those types of caches, the edges remain just a bit blurred.

Imagine this hypothetical scenario;

I punch in the coords to one of your caches, and hoof it to ground zero. The cache description tells me I am searching for a Lock & Lock. The hint is a dead giveaway. When I arrive, I find that a bush-hog mower has preceded me, leaving bits of shredded plastic, (including one with the official GC decal), chopped up McToys, half a stash note, and nothing else. I obviously can't sign the log, since it is no longer there, so I photograph my findings, and log it as a find, describing what I saw.

(Not something I would do, as, for me, no signature means I don't claim a find, but this is just a hypothetical situation, so we can stretch things a bit)

You read my log, determine that I did not sign the log, therefor my find is bogus, in your opinion, and you delete my log. I appeal to Groundspeak, sending them my photo of your destroyed cache.

If Groundspeak restored my find, (which I suspect they would, under the circumstances), then they are demonstrating that signing the log is not an absolute requirement for someone who wishes to claim they were geocaching.

Now, change the scenario just a bit;

I get to ground zero, can't find the cache, check the hint, and at the spot where the cache used to reside I find a note, stating something to the effect of, "The Forest Defenders have stolen your cache! Sucks to be you! Ha Ha Ha!" I log my find, including a picture of the site, and you delete it. If Groundspeak restored my find, they would be demonstrating that not even locating any part of a cache is a prerequisite for someone who wants to claim they are geocaching.

I've seen mention of both these examples leading to log restoration, in these forums.

Now, obviously, you believe that the examples I cited were not the case with the folks who swept through your Island, logging caches in record breaking time. You believe that they didn't even stop for some caches, choosing instead to just drive by. If they contested the log deletions, and you were able to show proof that the cache was in place, and their name was not on the logs, Groundspeak might very well side with you.

I am in no way defending their actions, as I happen to concur with your original definition of the game. I'm just pointing out that, since Groundspeak doesn't require that logs be signed in all instances, and they don't require that caches even be found, in all instances, Groundspeak has set a precedent, dictating that your definition of geocaching, (and mine), may be too narrow.

With that in mind, (again stressing that I am not advocating the kind of game those folks were playing), all I suggest is that you don't get so worked up over how others interpret the many varied nuances of this game. Slinging insults, such as "cheater", spewing hyperbole and injecting rhetoric does little to support your cause. You would be much better served by simply playing the game the way you feel it should be played, worrying less about how someone else chooses to play. If you feel a log needs to be deleted, have at it. But do so rationally. Getting mad about it doesn't help.

I am glad that you agree with my definition of geocaching but I will freely admit that it is maybe more narrow than some folks are comfortable with. You make the point that the edges get blurred in the case of virtuals, earth caches, CITOs and the like but I would say not that much. It is true that there are no logs, but you have to do other things like answer questions or post a picture to demonstrate that you were actually there. So it is a distinction without a difference. It is still not acceptable to say, I know it is over there somewhere so I am going to log a find.

In the case where the brushhog mower ate the cache: after I said some choice words about a CO who places his cache where it can get chewed up, I would reach into my handy-dandy cache rescue kit, pull out a temporary container and new log book (if necessary), gather up what is salvageable from the old cache, put it in the new container then trash the rest. Sign the log, rehide the container (hopefully in a nearby but less vulnerable place), then after logging the find, email the owner describing what was done and suggesting that the cache needs maintenance.

In the case of the forest defenders stealing the cache and leaving a note, that is no different than anyone else stealing the cache and not leaving a note. The cache is gone. No cache, no log, no find. None of this, well I saw where it was so I am logging a find.

As for your last comment, I am not mad about this. My emotions would be better characterized as somewhere between dismay, disappointment and disgust. You can make the point that I am imposing my standards on other people and I say guilty your honor. It's like the guy who claims to have a degree from Harvard but doesn't. It is no skin off your back if he wants to make that claim. But we all know that it is unethical to do so.

July 14, 2011

If it's obvious that it was found, then I wouldn't. I'm not an owner, but I've had (& heard of) finds where the log was too full or trashed to be signed.Plus, there maybe some physical reason (IE arthritis) to prevent it.

Edited July 14, 2011 by jd-mitchell

July 14, 2011

Thinking more about it, the question I should have asked is this: Do you care if someone logs a find on your cache when they didn't actually even look for it, but they were within 300 ft. of the container?

I am curious if the local cache owners cared enough to delete the logs.

I'll let ya know this Saturday. One of my caches was logged as a 'find' by the couple in question and I'll be checking my cache then. It's got a fresh log so the 'full log' excuse is out of the picture.

I'm also skeptical of the 'no pen' excuse. One of my favorite things to do is go to a geoevent and say out loud, "Anyone got a pen?" and watch every single person go reaching. Real geocachers ALWAYS carry a pen or pencil, usually more than one. I can promise you, there are pens for sale in Hawaii.

Edited July 14, 2011 by leeroyboy

6.1k · July 14, 2011

Keep in mind that even if you play by the rules, others may not...The other day I had to check on a cache and saw 6 or so signatures NOT on the paper log, so I deleted them. 2-3 days later, the cache conveniently disappeared. I suppose it could have been a muggling, but I have my doubts.

So they went and found something that they previously didn't find but said that they did. Or it could have been one person signing them in as a team.

July 14, 2011

I care that someone doesn't sign the physical log, but I will not go out of my way to check.

SS

Ditto. And if you're dumb enough to admit you didn't sign my log, outside of tremendous circumstances, be prepared for a deleted log.

ditto...if you don't say you didn't sign the log...I won't say anthing....

But if you say you didn't...I would like an explanation...

I use to think that you had to sign the log, but nowhere in the guideline does it say you HAVE to...You should have a picture or something as proof and that would be a help if there are any questions. But the guidelines are not specific about having to sign the log.

Edited July 14, 2011 by alohabra

Do you care if someone logs a find on one of your caches, but doesn't sign the log?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment