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

[+John in Valley Forge]

If someone is so desperate for a smiley that they will lie about finding my film can in a guard rail, I am not going to be the one to push them over the edge by deleting the find. In fact, I would never know as I do not audit the log sheets.

 

My puzzle cache is a different story altogether. I do look at the log book of that one and since it has a fraction of the finds, I recognize the names.

 

When my multi along the river gets found I will likely check the logs. Any excuse to run the boat.

 

 

[+RocTheCacheBox]

So it doesn't mean that Physical geocaches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed? Im begining to understand now!

You falling for a logical fallacy called denying the antecedent. It says that once the physical log has been signed you can log a find online. That does not mean that if the physical log is not signed you can not log a find online. Again think of the reason the guideline was added. Cache owners were deleting online logs because the finder hadn't done some silly additional requirement after finding the cache. They were told to stop doing this. The only requirement they could have for logging a find online were finding the cache and signing the log. It did not tell them they had to have these requirements (although elsewhere cache owners are told to delete logs that appear to be bogus), just that anything else (with the exception of certain geocaching related challenges) was no longer allowed.

Thanks for taking time for me tozainamboku.

 

I now understand that the only requirement a CO can have for logging a find is finding the cache and signing the log and that they dont even have to require a signature if they so choose.

 

Im going to assume (and I know what that does) that if I find a log in a cache, the owner more than likely would like me to sign that log.

[+HomeStyle]

I have a cache that has a tricky log location. I do actively check the logbook. I will only delete the online log if someone say, "signed log" and they actually put their own piece of paper in the cache, without going to the effort of finding the log. That being said, if they "think the log is missing so I put a new one in there for you", then I don't think I should be rude and delete their smiley when they were being totally honest and trying to "help" maintain the cache. Either that, or it depends on what kind of mood I'm in that day ;-)

[+cx1]

I will only delete the online log if someone say, "signed log" and they actually put their own piece of paper in the cache, without going to the effort of finding the log.

 

Really?

So even though it is fairly clear that they 'found' the cache due to the evidence of their piece of paper being in the cache you would delete their online 'found' log?

Thankfully that extreme interpretation of the guidelines is rare in this area.

Has your position on this ever been challenged by an appeal to Groundspeak?

[Night_Hiker]

I will only delete the online log if someone say, "signed log" and they actually put their own piece of paper in the cache, without going to the effort of finding the log.

 

Really?

So even though it is fairly clear that they 'found' the cache due to the evidence of their piece of paper being in the cache you would delete their online 'found' log?

Thankfully that extreme interpretation of the guidelines is rare in this area.

Has your position on this ever been challenged by an appeal to Groundspeak?

 

Seems the idea behind his cache is finding the actual log within the container, of course that detail should be included in the description of that geocache so people are aware that you must find the log. If they are no aware that they should be searching for a hidden log then that would not be right I agree

[+Vater_Araignee]

I will only delete the online log if someone say, "signed log" and they actually put their own piece of paper in the cache, without going to the effort of finding the log.

 

Really?

So even though it is fairly clear that they 'found' the cache due to the evidence of their piece of paper being in the cache you would delete their online 'found' log?

Thankfully that extreme interpretation of the guidelines is rare in this area.

Has your position on this ever been challenged by an appeal to Groundspeak?

See the first line of my signature?

That isn't to say I wont add a logbook or sheet if I believe the original is missing, but if the CO deletes my find explaining that the log was there, I'm not going to get angry, sad or what ever. I'd probably be excited. Of course the CO isn't going to delete my find, but they may tell me it is invalid causing me to switch it to unfound in GSAK.

[+EraSeek]

Yes I care. They must leave their signature in the cache or it is not a find, period. I don't care if it is on a seperate piece of paper or not. If they have not done this, I will delete it.

[+cx1]

 

See the first line of my signature?

 

 

I'm sorry but I do not see the connection between

I am the Midnight Cacher! He who what caches at midnight!

and the current topic. Could you expand on that a bit?

 

Anyway, as Night_Hiker stated, if it was clear on the cache page that finding the log inside the cache was part of the puzzle of the cache then I could understand HomeStyle's position to a certain extent. But that is not clearly the case to me (given the limited information in the post) so that is why I asked hoping for a specific rational behind the position.

I am still curious if Groundspeak would support the log deletion though.

[+lamoracke]

yes I do. Will I find out about it most of the time? Probably not.

 

Certainly have signed every EraSeek cache I have logged.

 

Now, if I do find out someone did not sign it and especially if its a tough cache and its been pointed out to me, I will email the person respectfully and possibly ask them to remedy the situation before I delete the log, rather make a public spectacle about it (which I have seen some folks do to others and me personally).

[+t4e]

 

See the first line of my signature?

 

 

i do, what language is that "he who what...?"?

[+HomeStyle]

I will only delete the online log if someone say, "signed log" and they actually put their own piece of paper in the cache, without going to the effort of finding the log.

 

Really?

So even though it is fairly clear that they 'found' the cache due to the evidence of their piece of paper being in the cache you would delete their online 'found' log?

Thankfully that extreme interpretation of the guidelines is rare in this area.

Has your position on this ever been challenged by an appeal to Groundspeak?

 

Really. It's a big black trash can in the back of a paved used car lot with a hot pink sticker on it. Obviously the thrill is not in finding a trash can. And I went for a long time and didn't challenge anyone. However (and it's one of those fun caches where you KNOW that finding the log is a challenge), when someone throws down a piece of paper in the wrong spot inside this cache, it messes it up for future seekers. I don't have this rule for my other caches. Just this one. And like I said, I only do it because to not do it would be poor cache maintenance and tons of un-fun for future seekers.

[+HomeStyle]

Have you ever found one of those caches with 100 film rolls in it and you have to find the canister with the correct log? It's like that. See? It's not fair to let someone put their name in just any canister. They have to find the correct one. Everyone else does. And if 75 of the canisters have random names in it, the intent of fun is now gone.... No challenge.

[+Etoa Nrish]

Have you ever found one of those caches with 100 film rolls in it and you have to find the canister with the correct log? It's like that. See? It's not fair to let someone put their name in just any canister. They have to find the correct one. Everyone else does. And if 75 of the canisters have random names in it, the intent of fun is now gone.... No challenge.

 

As far as I am concerned, making the finder search through 100 sub containers to find the log is an an additional logging requirement akin to having to take a picture of yourself in a silly hat in order to log the cache. Those types of additional logging requirements are specifically prohibited. Depending on the circumstances, night time, raining, snowing and whether time allows, I may or may not play the cache owners game. In any case, I found the cache, I had it in my hands and I would feel no guilt about claiming a find whether I actually found the log and signed it or not.

Edited August 9, 2011 by Etoa Nrish

[+:DK]

we had someone like that in our area.. well from what i heard. all of my logs were signed by one person and the online log by someone else, so i figure that was the same person. however, this person would log hundreds between 2-3 counties a day. actually, no i am getting confused. there were 2 of them. one logging several counties during the day and the other just random here and there. if someone logged online and did not sign my log, i would email them first.. sometime people do forget to sign.. not often, but it happens.. it sucks when you realize and you have to turn back around to sign!!!

[+lamoracke]

Have you ever found one of those caches with 100 film rolls in it and you have to find the canister with the correct log? It's like that. See? It's not fair to let someone put their name in just any canister. They have to find the correct one. Everyone else does. And if 75 of the canisters have random names in it, the intent of fun is now gone.... No challenge.

 

As far as I am concerned, making the finder search through 100 sub containers to find the log is an an additional logging requirement akin to having to take a picture of yourself in a silly hat in order to log the cache. Those types of additional logging requirements are specifically prohibited. Depending on the circumstances, night time, raining, snowing and whether time allows, I may or may not play the cache owners game. In any case, I found the cache, I had it in my hands and I would feel no guilt about claiming a find whether I actually found the log and signed it or not.

 

An ALR? Come on man. An ALR is forcing someone to do something that is not related to the find itself. Since when is having to look through 100 containers to choose the right one an ALR? If you reach a GZ with 10 ferns and its in a fern, is that an ALR? A rock wall? Well, that must be an ALR because there could be 50 rocks it could be behind easy. A fake pine cone on a tree branch? GZ has 3 trees with many branches to look through, thats an ALR. Come on.

 

However, you are referring to decoys here. I found a cache once that had 64 ping pong balls to choose from. I found another with 50 "bullets". I found another that was in a wine cork in a pile of wine corks. Etc etc. This is just making the cache hard to find, its not an ALR.

[+GeoBain]

Have you ever found one of those caches with 100 film rolls in it and you have to find the canister with the correct log? It's like that. See? It's not fair to let someone put their name in just any canister. They have to find the correct one. Everyone else does. And if 75 of the canisters have random names in it, the intent of fun is now gone.... No challenge.

 

As far as I am concerned, making the finder search through 100 sub containers to find the log is an an additional logging requirement akin to having to take a picture of yourself in a silly hat in order to log the cache. Those types of additional logging requirements are specifically prohibited. Depending on the circumstances, night time, raining, snowing and whether time allows, I may or may not play the cache owners game. In any case, I found the cache, I had it in my hands and I would feel no guilt about claiming a find whether I actually found the log and signed it or not.

Unfortunately this is one of those instances where Groundspeak would side with the CO. No sig on log, no find.

 

(Of course Groundspeak would have no problem if the CO allowed a find log with no sig either)

[+Vater_Araignee]

 

See the first line of my signature?

 

I'm sorry but I do not see the connection between

I am the Midnight Cacher! He who what caches at midnight!

and the current topic. Could you expand on that a bit?

Odd, it is suppose to say "The log is the cache, everything else is just swag, camouflage or container. Ya didn't find the cache if ya didn't open the container, and if ya did find the cache then prove it by signing it."

 

i do, what language is that "he who what...?"?

It is a parody of the Midnight Bomber and what he ran around screaming.

Now I wounder why it is showing up one place correctly an not another.

Oh well I'm sure it will fix it self eventually.

[tommytrojan360]

What's your guy's opinion on "taking a picture of yourself with the log or cache because you actually don't have a pen on you". I'm going to be honest and say I've done this a handful of times. I don't carry a pen around with me everywhere. When you're out with your friends and think to yourself, "Hey there might be a cache here," you might not have a pen on you. I want your guys honest opinion here. Don't worry, you wont hurt my feelings haha!

[+Hawkins2.5]

What's your guy's opinion on "taking a picture of yourself with the log or cache because you actually don't have a pen on you". I'm going to be honest and say I've done this a handful of times. I don't carry a pen around with me everywhere. When you're out with your friends and think to yourself, "Hey there might be a cache here," you might not have a pen on you. I want your guys honest opinion here. Don't worry, you wont hurt my feelings haha!

 

I've actually changed my opinion a little on this since reading this thread. Originally I was of the opinion that you have to sign the log to get a find. I'm relatively new and do not own a cache myself yet but I now think that as long as you can prove you had the cache in your hands, then that must be a find and I think people who delete such a find would be a little mean. A photo could prove the cache was in your hands therefore you did find it, which is the point of the 'game'. There's no doubt in it. A description provided to the cache owner could also be proof that you found it.

 

In actual fact, a photo may even offer greater proof that you were at the cache site. If I have a photo of me at the site, cache and logbook in hand, I don't see how that could not be a find. I could send a friend geocaching and get them to write my name in the logbook then claim it as a find. Just my opinion though, I still prescribe to the 'cache and let cache' attitude on the whole.

[+HomeStyle]

What's your guy's opinion on "taking a picture of yourself with the log or cache because you actually don't have a pen on you". I'm going to be honest and say I've done this a handful of times. I don't carry a pen around with me everywhere. When you're out with your friends and think to yourself, "Hey there might be a cache here," you might not have a pen on you. I want your guys honest opinion here. Don't worry, you wont hurt my feelings haha!

 

No, I wouldn't delete the find. Simply because it didn't "mess up the container" in this instance. I would, however, send the cacher an email and tell them where the log is. Usually it starts up a nice, funny conversation. You would be amazed at how many cachers I have met just through email conversations about my container. As I said before, I'm not anal about the cache. I'm just protecting it for future fun. Usually the logs on this cache are very entertaining. When suddenly a stream comes through with "tftc", I know that a fake log is mixed in. Meaning, the cache went from "haha, good one. That was super fun" to "this log was signed by my android".

[+macatac1961]

About a year ago, someone was logging caches around here with 'Photo only' as his log. I e-mailed and asked what he (she?) meant and he said, "I didn't touch the cache, I just took a picture of it". I replied and said that the only real rule in this game is to sign the log. He responded and asked if I wanted him to remove the logs. I didn't delete his finds, neither did he, nor did he post any photos as his proof. Is it really that important that the game be played to the letter of the guidelines? It's a game, not tax preparation. It's definitely your right (and some might say your responsibility) to remove bogus logs from your cache but is it worth the angst it might create? Life's too short.

[+cx1]

 

Really. It's a big black trash can in the back of a paved used car lot with a hot pink sticker on it. Obviously the thrill is not in finding a trash can. And I went for a long time and didn't challenge anyone. However (and it's one of those fun caches where you KNOW that finding the log is a challenge), when someone throws down a piece of paper in the wrong spot inside this cache, it messes it up for future seekers. I don't have this rule for my other caches. Just this one. And like I said, I only do it because to not do it would be poor cache maintenance and tons of un-fun for future seekers.

Thank you for the explanation. The reason I questioned you was because I envisioned the cache possibly being a bit different then which you have described.

 

Say you make a typical ammo can hide in the woods with the basic cache page size large, difficulty 1.5 terrain 2.5 yada yada yada.

Then after a few finds have been logged you go and exchange the logbook with a nano sized log strip hidden in a piece of swag inside the ammo box. You make no mention of this switch on the cache listing.

Now I come along geocaching and find this ammo box. I don't see a logbook so I take a replacement log sheet out of my caching pack, sign it and drop it in the ammo box.

Later while logging online I forget to mention I added a new log sheet and just put signed log at the end of my paragraph.

Could you see where I might be confused when you delete my online log because I did not sign the little nano strip? Could you see where some CO's might set something like this up just so they can delete people's online logs and stir up trouble?

 

Clearly you cache is not what I posted above but as you first described it, it could have been. Thank you for not taking my inquiry the wrong way and for providing an answer to my question.

[+sshipway]

I am constantly amazed by how seriously some people take what is, after all, just a game. Hence the question about puzzle caches I posted yesterday.

 

I wouldn't care one way or another if a CO deleted my logs on some pretext or if someone logged a find on my cache and hadn't signed a log. Neither detracts from my enjoyment of the game. Even someone armchair-logging only cheats themselves. The only person who makes me annoyed is the trackable-thief as that detracts from other people's experiences.

[+TK7464]

I can't take credit for the photos but here a a couple of examples of a time when I can give a pass on signing the log

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=118335&st=200

Post #205

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=118335&st=50

Post #66

Edited August 10, 2011 by TK7464

[+GeoBain]

I can't take credit for the photos but here a a couple of examples of a time when I can give a pass on signing the log

I see what you did there.

[+LocutusMIT]

My own personal code is that if I manage to touch the log itself, or I can verify that the log is indeed missing, I'll count it as a find. If at all possible (and I'll make considerable effort), I'll sign the log. I feel that the physical log is really there for the cache owner to keep after it's been filled or the cache archived, and I hate to stiff the person who put all the effort in to make my day a little more fun.

 

I can think of only three times where I have posted a find but didn't sign the log. In one, the log was so wet that it was simply impossible to get it out of the nano without destroying it. In the second, it was full to the point that I'd need to overwrite someone else's sign-in in order to add my own. In both cases, I posted a Needs Maintenance after logging it online.

 

The final one was my own fault. I was too excited about getting my brother into geocaching that I completely forgot to sign the darn thing myself. Unfortunately, it's way too far away from my home to run by it again in the near future (it's in Florida, and I live in Massachusetts), though I certainly will if I ever get the chance to. I still feel bad about forgetting to sign in, but not about marking it as a find--I did find and open the cache, get my hands on the log before handing it to my brother, and even traded a few TBs.

 

All that said, I think that I'm going to take the less stressful route when it comes to policing my future caches. If it's pretty clear that a person didn't actually find my cache, I'll first email him nicely (perhaps he accidentally logged the wrong cache?), then delete the log if he won't give me a satisfactory answer. If, however, there seems to be at least some chance that he did find it, even if he didn't sign the log, I won't even bother him to ask about it; I'm just going to give him the benefit of the doubt. It really isn't worth stressing over.

[+WarNinjas]

What do you all think of this one? I found it today and count it as a find but didn't sign the log. There was many paper wasps all around the cache area but I was not going to let that stop me, I'm a pest control guy. However after I finally made the find I decided that dealing with the paper wasps to actually sign the log would not be worth it. I posted in my log that I have a pic but didn't want to post it as it would be a spoiler. I did get close to another cache that had black widows around it but did not actually see the container. I posted that one as a did not find but I seen this one so to me it is a find without signing the actual log. Why take that risk to sign a piece of paper in a key holder. This is probably not in a area I will be returning to when they are gone. It is a find to me.

 

[Clan Riffster]

I'm glad you looked before you reached!

That could've had a very unpleasant ending.

If I were the seeker on that one, I would have logged it as a note instead of a find.

Unless I had wasp spray in my car. Then my name would be in the logbook.

If I were the owner of that cache, I would have no problem with you calling it a find.

[+The Fall Guy]

I've had cachers not sign on my home cache and they logged it. It doesn't bother me enough to question them though, unless the same person logged all of my hides as found and didn't sign any that would be excessive but I doubt that I would pursue it, it's not worth the uncomfortable questioning but that's just me.