Signing Logs

[NEwhere]

So of the 10 caches I've found so far, half have had wet logs. I'm talking wet to the point you could not separate the pages anymore. No way for a cache owner to read them, no way to sign them. So no way to verify founds logged here with sigs in the field. So i ask, what's the point? I saw a thread calling out some eurocacher as a fake for not signing the logs, whose to say they didn't find the cache? 2 caches i found where in such plain view of business that i would have looked suspicious grabbing the cache, opening it, signing a log and putting it all back the way i found it, so I didn't bother, but yeah i logged it as found.

 

Where is the Cache owner verified log book? I mean don't they periodically type in all the sigs in the logbook here on the cache page? If no what's the point?

[+GeoBain]

Good point.

[knowschad]

VERY few cache owners verify the written log against the website logs. Frequently, it would be almost an impossible task, as the logs do get wet and blurred, people "sign" with muddy sticks because they forgot their pen, cachers sign the log out of order, and so-on. Most of us will try to verify only when we suspect a bogus online log.

[+A & J Tooling]

Play the game your way. Let those of us who sign logs play it our way.

[+Gan Dalf]

Is this on the schedule for today?

[+StarBrand]

I use a Uniball Powertank RT pen (red is my preference) - some rate it as a better pen than the fisher space pens and it will write on even very wet paper - for less than $3.

 

Sign the logs - its what we do.

[+tomfuller & Quill]

The simplest solution to this problem I have found is to put my own dry paper in the cache with my log. I sometimes put in my geocaching card with the log on the back. I have also taken a digital picture of the cache and contents and posted with my log. I also post a NM with wet log, damp log, cracked container so that the next finder or the CO knows what to expect.

I hate to post a NA but will do so if the CO or someone else doesn't within 6 months.

Let's keep the logging honest. If you can't sign the log after you open the container, either file a NM or "write note" with condition of the cache. If you can post a picture with the open cache and contents and put in your own paper. Most CO's will take some action to improve the container and put in a dry log sheet.

[+JesandTodd]

I find many people say the logs are wet, or see the logs are wet (online), and say that they couldn't sign the logs when they log their found it note. Then I get there the same day and the log was totally signable.

 

Not saying this is your case, but this is how/why we think people who don't sign logs suspicious.

 

I actually haven't met many logs that were too mushy to sign. I have an array of sharpie pens, and even an OR pen that signs anything. I still sign. Even if it's wet, mushy, and full.

 

If it's really impossible, then I snap a pic of the log and submit it with my found it log. No matter what, I'm providing proof that I was really there.

 

eta: spelling

Edited December 2, 2011 by JesandTodd

[NEwhere]

VERY few cache owners verify the written log against the website logs. Frequently, it would be almost an impossible task, as the logs do get wet and blurred, people "sign" with muddy sticks because they forgot their pen, cachers sign the log out of order, and so-on. Most of us will try to verify only when we suspect a bogus online log.

 

Bogus online long? What is the point of that? I understand this is a game, and have enjoyed finding some of the caches I've looked for so far. Is there some competition I'm unaware of other than first to find? Is their a rankings page or something?

 

What clues a cache owner into thinking a log is bogus?

 

As to the "buy a better pen" suggestion, I carry a Pilot Precise V5 Extra Fine in black, an excellent writing tool. What's nice about it is the ink just flows right out of it with contact to the paper, you don't have to press at all to get the ball to roll and the ink to flow! However the ink is liquidy and bleeds on wet paper, what's that Uniball rockin a gel or something? Does it write upside for extended periods cause that is super useful.

[NEwhere]

The simplest solution to this problem I have found is to put my own dry paper in the cache with my log. I sometimes put in my geocaching card with the log on the back. I have also taken a digital picture of the cache and contents and posted with my log. I also post a NM with wet log, damp log, cracked container so that the next finder or the CO knows what to expect.

I hate to post a NA but will do so if the CO or someone else doesn't within 6 months.

Let's keep the logging honest. If you can't sign the log after you open the container, either file a NM or "write note" with condition of the cache. If you can post a picture with the open cache and contents and put in your own paper. Most CO's will take some action to improve the container and put in a dry log sheet.

 

I could take a picture of each cache i find, but wouldn't posting it in the log potentially be giving extra unneeded hints which would in turn piss people off? I could just save them all for the off chance some cache owner calls me out, do people do that? Do people care that much? I did not log any of these caches i found but on some of them i made notes in the log section as to the condition of the cache itself.

[+JesandTodd]

It's unneccessary to take a pic of each cache you find, just upload a pic of the log in question.

Nobody will get up in arms over this. The log doesn't tell me any more of hint then the size listed does...

[knowschad]

VERY few cache owners verify the written log against the website logs. Frequently, it would be almost an impossible task, as the logs do get wet and blurred, people "sign" with muddy sticks because they forgot their pen, cachers sign the log out of order, and so-on. Most of us will try to verify only when we suspect a bogus online log.

 

Bogus online long? What is the point of that?

 

Exactly. But it has been known to happen.

[+Gan Dalf]

It's unneccessary to take a pic of each cache you find, just upload a pic of the log in question.

Nobody will get up in arms over this. The log doesn't tell me any more of hint then the size listed does...

 

What if the listed size is unknown?

[+StarBrand]

... what's that Uniball rockin a gel or something? Does it write upside for extended periods cause that is super useful.

Yes it writes upside down in in frigid temperatures. See: http://penaddiction.blogspot.com/2008/09/review-uni-ball-power-tank-ballpoint.html

[+JesandTodd]

It's unneccessary to take a pic of each cache you find, just upload a pic of the log in question.

Nobody will get up in arms over this. The log doesn't tell me any more of hint then the size listed does...

 

What if the listed size is unknown?

 

Taking a pic of the log still won't spoil anything. And people can choose to not view online photos...

[+Gan Dalf]

It's unneccessary to take a pic of each cache you find, just upload a pic of the log in question.

Nobody will get up in arms over this. The log doesn't tell me any more of hint then the size listed does...

 

What if the listed size is unknown?

 

Taking a pic of the log still won't spoil anything.

 

Sure it will. If the log is a 8x11 spiral note book you can guess pretty easily that the cache is not a nano. On the other hand if the log is a rolled up strip of 1/4 inch paper than it's not a stretch to assume that the cache IS a nano.

[+JesandTodd]

An 8x11 spiral notebook, listed as an unknown size, that has a log that in no way can be possibly signed?? Lol.

 

Okie dokie, sure.

 

In addition, as highly unlikely as the above situation is to happen... it IS still possible to chooseto not view pics.

 

So, if you, the CO, has an 8x11 spiral-mushy-impossible-to-sign notebook, then I'm posting a pic of my attempted siggy, and you'll have to deal with it. Or delete it.

But you won't doubt that I was at your cache.

 

ETA: emphasis of key words

Edited December 2, 2011 by JesandTodd

[NEwhere]

... what's that Uniball rockin a gel or something? Does it write upside for extended periods cause that is super useful.

Yes it writes upside down in in frigid temperatures. See: http://penaddiction.blogspot.com/2008/09/review-uni-ball-power-tank-ballpoint.html

 

My mind has been blown! And after some searching I found my pen of choice http://www.penaddict.com/precise_v5/ now to see how long it writes upside down...

[NEwhere]

An 8x11 spiral notebook, listed as an unknown size, that has a log that in no way can be possibly signed?? Lol.

 

Okie dokie, sure.

 

 

No the spiral notebook is the soaking wet log, not the cache

[+Gan Dalf]

An 8x11 spiral notebook, listed as an unknown size, that has a log that in no way can be possibly signed?? Lol.

 

Okie dokie, sure.

 

That's not the point, you said a picture of a log wouldn't give anything away, I gave you two examples in which they did. I noticed you conveniently ignored my nano log example...

 

i] it IS still possible to chooseto not view pics.[/i]

From the CO's perspective, it's not the ones who choose not to view a pic of a spoiler but the ones that do. Surely you're not suggesting that all subsequent searchers would never look at a picture on a cache page to help them find a cache they can't...

 

So, if you, the CO, has an 8x11 spiral-mushy-impossible-to-sign notebook, then I'm posting a pic of my attempted siggy, and you'll have to deal with it. Or delete it.

But you won't doubt that I was at your cache.

I would certainly delete the photo, at least when that option becomes available in the next site update... If I had such a cache, which I don't.

 

But I do have non nano caches that are listed as size Not Chosen that people have posted what I considered to be spoiler pictures before. My solution was to write them a nice note asking them to remove the phtoto from their log, which they did. Not sure what I would have done if they hadn't but it's not something I was confronted with so Idon't have to worry about that.

[+tozainamboku]

Do people care that much? I did not log any of these caches i found but on some of them i made notes in the log section as to the condition of the cache itself.

Apparently some people feel this is a competition and the number of Find logs you enter online is the score.

 

Some of these people may discover that in fact you can log a find online without even visiting the cache. So they might log a bogus online log. Cache owners have been told by Groundspeak to delete logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off-topic, or otherwise inappropriate. So some cache owners look for ways to determine if a log is bogus. A few will check the physical log in the cache and will delete your Found log if they don't find your signature. They will quote all sorts of guidelines and "rules" on the geocaching.com website to justify this practice, though in fact there are no such rules. (I will, for now, avoid the usual epithet I give these people).

 

If you are not logging a Found online then if makes no difference if you signed the physical log or not. But if you do log Found It on cache you might expect a cache owner at some point will delete your Found It log.

 

So let's examine the reasons for signing a log and logging a find online for those of us who believe there is no competition for who has the most online find logs and no reason to get our knickers in a twist over how someone defines a find.

 

I always try to sign the log. Signing the physical log is proof to me as the finder that I was here and found the cache. Some caches involve a physical or mental challenge to retrieve and sign the log (e.g. climb a tree or open a lock on the box). By going through all the steps necessary to sign the log, you know you have done almost everything the cache owner intended. (The cache owner probably also intended that you put the cache back as you found it, but a signed log doesn't ensure that you did this). A signed log also serves as evidence for others that you found the cache. I enjoy looking at the names in the log and seeing which of my friends were here before me. Similarly on a new cache, an empty log serves as evidence that you were first to find (in case you are into things like this). But sometimes for one reason or another you can't sign the physical log. I always argue in this forum that there is no requirement to sign the log and that cache owners should still allow you to log the find online so long as there is some evidence that it is not a bogus log.

 

I always log my finds online. If I didn't sign the log because I was unable to complete the physical or mental challenge the cache owner intended for me, I will not log it as found. Otherwise, I will use a Found it log and if I didn't sign the log for some other reason, I will explain this in my online log. The online log is used to keep track of the caches I found. The geocaching.com site allows me to filter out these caches. Some people may be willing to go back to a cache that had a wet log to sign their name before logging it found online; I think this is unnecessary. The online found log also serves as a place to thank the cache owner for placing a cache. I'm quite willing to thank a person for a cache, even if the log is too wet to write on. Others may feel that lack of maintenance or a poor container choice is enough of a reason to not thank someone. The main reason for an online log is to share the geocaching experience with others. By using a Found log, other will know that the cache is there and is findable. If they read the log they may also come prepared to help out with maintenance (e.g., by bringing a new log sheet).

 

I hope this explains that there are reasons both for signing the physical log and for logging the find online and that that these are different and mostly unrelated.

[TheDoctorPH]

personally i like signing logs and seeing everyone else's signature. to me it makes it feel like your part of something more so than seeing the logs on the website does. makes it more tangible i guess.

 

but like A&J said, its a game. play it the way that makes it fun for you. if people cheat who cares? they are only cheating themselves.

[+JesandTodd]

 

That's not the point, you said a picture of a log wouldn't give anything away, I gave you two examples in which they did. I noticed you conveniently ignored my nano log example...

Ignored your nano log example? Lol. I have never, EVER, been suprised to find a nano.

 

A picture of a log has never given a thing away. Basic reading skills, coupled with the location and the presence of an unknown cache size will direct me to what size the log is going to be.

 

Yeah, every blue moon, someone posts a "unknown size" and really means it. Like it's a different cache shape, etc.

 

The use of this size for nanos is shameful, but so common that I just assume that it means nano nowadays. Especially if you mention "bring your own pen"

 

Your example of a 8x11 being ruined by a picture is taken out of the context of this thread. I said that if the log was TOO MUSHY to sigh, then it gets a photo as proof of me visiting your cache. Then I clarified it by showing that an 8x11 logbook that is too soggy to sign, AND is listed as an unknown cache is highly likely. You know this to be true.

 

If you choose to delete the photo, I don't care. I post it for the CO to see, as proof as my visit. Delete away

[+Gan Dalf]

 

That's not the point, you said a picture of a log wouldn't give anything away, I gave you two examples in which they did. I noticed you conveniently ignored my nano log example...

Ignored your nano log example? Lol. [removed for clarity].

 

A picture of a log has never given a thing away. Basic reading skills, coupled with the location and the presence of an unknown cache size will direct me to what size the log is going to be.

 

You really shouldn't speak in absolutes with words like "never" or always when there are over a million caches that you haven't even looked at the cache pages of...

 

We're not talking about YOU and your ability to figure things out. We're talking about everyone else that comes after you. By posting a picture of the log on the cache page of a cache where the owner hasn't said what the size is or indicated it in the description is a spoiler and you shouldn't be doing it. Couldn't you just e-mail the owner with your proof? Why do you have to post it with your log?

[+JesandTodd]

Actually, I was talking about me, hence the use ofthe personal pronoun "I"

As in ..."I have never, EVER, been suprised to find a nano." you know, the part you edited out 'for clarity'

 

Lol again.

 

You know, if a cache was truly so special that posting a pic of the log would ruin it, I wouldnt do it. Please. I happen to have common sense.

(note the use if the word 'I' again, you know, for clarity)

 

Either way. If I cant sign a mushy log-which is extremely rare given my assortment of sharpies and other pens- then I'm posting a pic. Period. Delete it if you must. I really don't care about that (as I said earlier.) but I will have proven to be at that cache, which I DO care about.

 

And that's just not going to change.

[+The VanDucks]

Too bad some cachers won't bother to do a good deed and just leave a piece of paper to replace a wet log. It's not so hard to carry a few sizes of paper with you, if you have a geocaching bag or just keep a few geo-supplies in your car. One of the great aspects of this game is that most cachers are willing to help each other out. When I replace a wet log, or dry out a wet container, I mention that in my online log so the CO will be aware that they need to do a maintenance check. There can be lots of reasons why the CO hasn't been able to replace the wet log. We try to take care of our caches regularly, but sometimes other things in life get in the way. You can print out the usual sizes of logs for nanos and bison tubes on the geocaching.com website, cut them apart, and keep a few with you when you go caching.

 

And why sign the log? Well, that's the way the game is played. You can make up your own rules, but most of us do play with the accepted rules as stated on the website. If I just wanted to say I'd found those caches that were hidden in muggle-rich areas, without going to the trouble of waiting out the muggles, pretending to talk on my cell phone, or tie my shoe while grabbing the cache and signing the actual log, I would be the only one knowing I cheated. That would bother my conscience.

Edited December 2, 2011 by The VanDucks

[+Chrysalides]

My mind has been blown! And after some searching I found my pen of choice http://www.penaddict.com/precise_v5/ now to see how long it writes upside down...

I used to be a fan of the V5, way back. After a few catastrophic failures (translate : leaking pens) I stopped using them. Besides they don't write as smooth as gel pens, so I use the G2 mini. They're fairly inexpensive, which is good, since I seem to have just lost my 6th pen. As a backup I carry the Zebra F302 mini, which sadly seems to be unavailable in the U.S. once again.

[+GeoBain]

Too bad some cachers won't bother to do a good deed and just leave a piece of paper to replace a wet log.

 

Too bad way too few cache owners bother to do regular maintenance on their caches or even bother to do maintenance when notified of problems but rather choose to push their responsibility off on others.

[+baloo&bd]

 

That's not the point, you said a picture of a log wouldn't give anything away, I gave you two examples in which they did. I noticed you conveniently ignored my nano log example...

 

 

Even though not directed at me, I think I can address it.

 

A Nono would be a micro and listed as such.

 

Something containing a 8x10 spiral notebook would be a regular or, the the very least, a very large "small" and listed as such.

 

In either of these cases, a pic of the log would not impact any false perception of size. (never thought I would type that in THESE forums)

[NEwhere]

Agreed geobrain, as a beginner 50% of the caches I've found are owned by people who clearly don't do maintenance, are are noobs based On cache count finds. Seems like a lot of folks get interested in caching and then in their first month create all these caches and then get bored of it and stop caring after a year or so, it's enough to turn noobs away I would think. Aren't there some seniority requirements for cache owners? There should be....

 

Maybe that's what a premium membership will help you avoid, are those caches all just awesome or something? The other 50% I've found were what I expected to find, nice clean dry ammo boxes or nanos in quality containers.

[NEwhere]

What's a nono? A correctly sized nano? J/k. But I agree that a pic of a log could give me info (spoiler) I didn't expect to see....how could it not in the case of unlisted sizes?

[+JesandTodd]

What's a nono? A correctly sized nano? J/k. But I agree that a pic of a log could give me info (spoiler) I didn't expect to see....how could it not in the case of unlisted sizes?

 

Because 99% of unlisted sizes (IME) have been nanos. Especially those where the description says, "bring pen". I dunno. I've never been suprised that the find is a nano. Also, you do realize that there's a spoiler alert in notice when you click on photos? or it's somewhere...it's even on my iphone.

 

And then, if you click the photo, and see that a pile of mush on a poorly maintained log is a nano, your entire world will be ruined because that cache will be spoiled forever!!! (insert dramatic music here)

 

And yes, 'nono' is the more accurate description!

[AZcachemeister]

Why sign the log?

For me, it gives a certain satisfaction to put pen to paper...even if it is only to scratch my initials in a moldy, soggy logbook.

I found the cache and signed the log, nobody can take that away from me.

 

As JesandTodd say, I have (in numerous cases) signed a log that was previously claimed to be 'too wet to sign', and as a CO I have rushed out to replace a 'TOTALLY SOAKED' log, only to find it just slightly damp.

[Clan Riffster]

Signing Logs What's the point?

Good question. You'll probably find as many different answers to that as you will find geocachers. I think, in the end, it boils down to what feels like the right thing to do, for you. In perusing this thread I've found a few that mostly mirror my personal caching aesthetic, to include:

 

personally i like signing logs and seeing everyone else's signature. to me it makes it feel like your part of something more so than seeing the logs on the website does. makes it more tangible i guess.

That.

 

and...

 

And why sign the log? Well, that's the way the game is played. You can make up your own rules, but most of us do play with the accepted rules as stated on the website.

That.

 

And...

 

Why sign the log?

For me, it gives a certain satisfaction to put pen to paper...even if it is only to scratch my initials in a moldy, soggy logbook.

I found the cache and signed the log, nobody can take that away from me.

That.

 

But at the end of the day, it's really up to you. Signing a log makes me feel like I am some how connected to some greater community of cachers who have come before me, and will come after me. It is an act that creates a tangible record of my activities, assuming the log doesn't later turn into a petri dish. My inner Puritan comes out once I have the cache in sight, in that I will not claim a find on any cache that does not bear my moniker. It's just how I play. Signing the log, (and sitting down reading all the other signatures), is, for me, as much a part of the game as finding the cache. The guidelines are even written in such a manner that many have claimed that signing a log is a required precursor to claiming a find. (I don't interpret them that way, but many do) If you want to embrace the caching community, and be embraced in turn, you might want to consider signing every log you are able to sign.

Edited December 3, 2011 by Clan Riffster

[+Gan Dalf]

 

That's not the point, you said a picture of a log wouldn't give anything away, I gave you two examples in which they did. I noticed you conveniently ignored my nano log example...

 

 

Even though not directed at me, I think I can address it.

 

A Nono would be a micro and listed as such.

 

Something containing a 8x10 spiral notebook would be a regular or, the the very least, a very large "small" and listed as such.

 

In either of these cases, a pic of the log would not impact any false perception of size. (never thought I would type that in THESE forums)

 

I can't tell if you are being serious or not.

 

When placing a cache you have the choice of selecting a size appropriate for the size of the container, listing th size as other or not selecting a size at all. Some have even been known to select a size not appropriate for the container size to throw people off. A size is not listed "as such" automatically and someone placing one is under no obligation to list one. I know several cache placers for which this is the norm rather than the exception.

 

The discussion that you are referring to above is with regards to caches that have no size listed, not the ones that do. At least that has been what I have been talking about, perhaps that is part of the problem. Obviuosly a picture of a log where the size is listed is not going to be an issue if someone posts a picture of it.

[Clan Riffster]

I did see a couple pens over the past couple months that I would like to add to my inventory. Maybe Santa will smile upon me? The first is called a Metal Pen. It's an inkless writing tool that utilizes a silver like alloy nub, which they claim will make a mark on just about anything, and will do so for decades. I've never actually tried one, but I thought it looked kinda kewl.

The second is a stylish version of the beloved Bullet model of the Fisher Space Pen. I own a Fisher, (different model), and it's never failed to leave a signature on something, though I haven't tested all their claims, such as writing under water, writing in a vacuum, etc. By making a custom sleeve, they've made the Bullet, (which previously did not look like a bullet), into something that actually resembles a bullet! How kewl is that?

[+Harry Dolphin]

Why sign the log?

For me, it gives a certain satisfaction to put pen to paper...even if it is only to scratch my initials in a moldy, soggy logbook.

I found the cache and signed the log, nobody can take that away from me.

 

As JesandTodd say, I have (in numerous cases) signed a log that was previously claimed to be 'too wet to sign', and as a CO I have rushed out to replace a 'TOTALLY SOAKED' log, only to find it just slightly damp.

 

Thre have been a few instances where I've left a sheet of paper with my name on it. But, generally, I can sign my name on almost log with my ball point pen from the bank. Frozen shut logbook? Not a problem! Done that a few times.

[+delanos]

I have a Cross, sharpie and a space pen and a cheaper write anywhere upside down too. I have found few logs to soggy to sign but have found nano caches that I forgot my tweezers and could not get the log out.

[+baloo&bd]

I can't tell if you are being serious or not.

 

When placing a cache you have the choice of selecting a size appropriate for the size of the container, listing th size as other or not selecting a size at all. Some have even been known to select a size not appropriate for the container size to throw people off. A size is not listed "as such" automatically and someone placing one is under no obligation to list one. I know several cache placers for which this is the norm rather than the exception.

 

The discussion that you are referring to above is with regards to caches that have no size listed, not the ones that do. At least that has been what I have been talking about, perhaps that is part of the problem. Obviuosly a picture of a log where the size is listed is not going to be an issue if someone posts a picture of it.

 

Not sure why there was any confusion about being serious.

 

You can't fix or make rules to fix stupid. If someone wants to improperly list their micro as a small or large, they're going to do it. We have one cacher in our area that insists that sizes are subjective and you should list it as whatever your mood is at the time and resists any and all guidelines to the contrary. Many area cachers were introduced to the valid reasons for an ignore list shortly they started caching.

 

What was mentioned is unknown sizes, not listed or other. Frankly, the former is just a lazy cacher, however the latter if for caches that do not fit into the listed definitions, such as a flat magnet with the log on the back. Currently any physical container, as in something that can contain something else, there is currently a size listed to be used.

 

That aside, there is a constant warning on the pages that pics and logs may contain spoilers.

 

Back OT, signing the paper log is one of the basic tenets of geocaching. If there ever is any type of dispute, the only argument that can be made against a log deletion is the existence of a physical signature.

[+jellis]

Sometimes I don't see a point anymore when I saw a new cacher place a bunch of liar caches which some was only a laminate saying "okay you found it so go log it" with no logsheet. What's up with that?

[+Chrysalides]

Sometimes I don't see a point anymore when I saw a new cacher place a bunch of liar caches which some was only a laminate saying "okay you found it so go log it" with no logsheet. What's up with that?

Sharpie signs quite well on laminated paper

[Clan Riffster]

Sometimes I don't see a point anymore when I saw a new cacher place a bunch of liar caches which some was only a laminate saying "okay you found it so go log it" with no logsheet. What's up with that?

I am blessed to have a pair of Reviewers living in close proximity to those areas I cache most frequently in. A blatant guideline violation like that, if not reported by a regular player, would not survive very long once they found it.

[+Sol seaker]

There aren't many "rules" to this game.

Sign the log is one of the only ones.

If someone doesn't sign the log sheet I have full rights as a cache owner to delete their online log.

 

I often find caches far from home, and would hate to have to go back and sign it because I neglected to do so to begin with.

There are many cache owners who will delete your online log if you have not signed the log sheet in the cache. There has been a lot of problem with bogus logs.

 

Find the cache, sign the log, log it online. That's the game.

 

If the cache owner has placed the cache in a place that is in full view of muggles he/she has done this knowing you need to sign the log. Do your best to be discrete, that's all you can do.

[+The_Incredibles_]

Sometimes I wonder what the point of signing the log is. *Especially* when it's a micro and the log is hard to get out and in again. I *hate* standing there unrolling and rolling up the thing, trying to cram it back in. Sometimes I really think I'm just not going to bother signing, but I always do.

 

However, the one thing I can say is I do enjoy leafing through logbooks to see who's signed.

[+GeoBain]

There aren't many "rules" to this game.

Sign the log is one of the only ones.

If someone doesn't sign the log sheet I have full rights as a cache owner to delete their online log.

 

So as long as I sign the log, it's ok to log a find on your caches?

 

 

[AZcachemeister]

Sometimes I don't see a point anymore when I saw a new cacher place a bunch of liar caches which some was only a laminate saying "okay you found it so go log it" with no logsheet. What's up with that?

I am blessed to have a pair of Reviewers living in close proximity to those areas I cache most frequently in. A blatant guideline violation like that, if not reported by a regular player, would not survive very long once they found it.

 

THIS is a one of several very good reason(s) to have the reviewer actually live (and hopefully go caching) in the territory they review for.

[+JesandTodd]

There aren't many "rules" to this game.

Sign the log is one of the only ones.

If someone doesn't sign the log sheet I have full rights as a cache owner to delete their online log.

 

So as long as I sign the log, it's ok to log a find on your caches?

 

 

 

Lol!

 

BUT...you can't post of pic of you signing the log, becuse it would spoil it it all the other people who can't sign...The log.

[+GeoBain]

There aren't many "rules" to this game.

Sign the log is one of the only ones.

If someone doesn't sign the log sheet I have full rights as a cache owner to delete their online log.

 

So as long as I sign the log, it's ok to log a find on your caches?

 

 

 

Lol!

 

BUT...you can't post of pic of you signing the log, becuse it would spoil it it all the other people who can't sign...The log.

 

Oops.

[+tozainamboku]

Find the cache, sign the log, log it online. That's the game.

Not sure where you saw this.

• Am I not playing the game if I look but don't find a cache?
  
• Am I not playing the game if I never log my finds online?
  
• Am I not playing the game if I don't sign the physical log?
  

 

I don't deny there are several explanations of geocaching on the website that indicate that when you find the cache you should write something in the log and share your geocaching experiences online. But I know for a fact that many people don't do either of these. Many people may write something in the physical log, but never log their experience online. Why is it that only those who don't sign the log but still share that they found the cache online are called "cheaters" and are the subject of so much angst in the forums?

 

There is no rule that ties the online to the physical signature per se. The closest we have is the guideline that was created to eliminate the practice of additional [online] logging requirements. It simply says that cacher can log a find online once they signed the physical log [regardless of any ALR the cache owner may have]. The way it is written still allows a cache owner to delete online logs because they physical log is not signed. However, it does not require cache owners to delete these online logs nor, IMO, does it even encourage them to do so. If anything, the guidelines should be a warning to cache owners to think twice about deleting what might be a legitimate online found log.

 

There aren't many "rules" to this game.

Sign the log is one of the only ones.

If someone doesn't sign the log sheet I have full rights as a cache owner to delete their online log.

 

So as long as I sign the log, it's ok to log a find on your caches?

 

 

That's not signing "the log", that's fingerspelling "the log". In any event, even the most puritan cachers don't make you leave your signature in the log, You can make almost any identifiable mark including stickers or stamps and people are satisfied. The so-call "rules" only say you should write about your find in the cache logbook. So if you want to a literalist, all those people who are only signing the log are cheaters.

Edited December 3, 2011 by tozainamboku

[+hukilaulau]

so I didn't bother, but yeah i logged it as found.

 

Yeah, I think you've got it about right. I mean really, what's the point of even getting out of the car if you're pretty sure you know where it is? For that matter, why even leave your house if you can see the location clearly on google maps. Log the find. Scroll on down the map to the next one...