What do you think?.....

[+medic161]

Recently I saw two logs on one of our caches where two very experienced cachers with thousands of finds took it upon themselves to place a new container and log because they could not find the original cache.

Now the cache in question has 33 finds and only 2 DNF's. My question is this, do you think this is ethical? Should'nt someone with these numbers under their belt just swallow their pride and take the DNF?

What would stop the rest from of us from just placing a new container instead of taking the time to search and either come up empty, find the container and enjoy the chance to be out caching.

I don't want to ruffle any feathers but just want to put this out there for some feedback.

[+Manville Possum]

Recently I saw two logs on one of our caches where two very experienced cachers with thousands of finds took it upon themselves to place a new container and log because they could not find the original cache.

Now the cache in question has 33 finds and only 2 DNF's. My question is this, do you think this is ethical? Should'nt someone with these numbers under their belt just swallow their pride and take the DNF?

What would stop the rest from of us from just placing a new container instead of taking the time to search and either come up empty, find the container and enjoy the chance to be out caching.

I don't want to ruffle any feathers but just want to put this out there for some feedback.

That's quite typical of a numbers cacher, and that is likely how they got so many finds. Those are called thrown down caches, and I have recycled a few placed near my listings that the numbers runners could not find. Normally they are film cans that are dropped of during cache runs or events.

[+geokopp]

I would check that your original is intact, then remove the new container, delete their log, and post a maintenance note that you "checked the original container and everything is in good condition."

[+tozainamboku]

They did so because they thought they were being helpful. Given that the cache had many finds it would seem to be a fairly easy one to find. You didn't say if the the two DNFs were the most recent logs or not. Sometimes, if you see cache has been found many times and suddenly gets a couple of DNFs, that could be a sign the cache has gone missing. Some cachers will replace a cache in this situation for the owner.

 

Now, despite the good intentions, replacing a cache this way, without permission, is not always being helpful. Unless someone in the group had found the cache before, they really can't know for sure where the cache was hidden or even what the container looked like. They may be leaving something for others to find, but which is completely different than the cache owner intended. Furthermore, there is a chance the original cache is still there. Now there are two cache to find - one that cache owner left and this new one that may be different. The cache owner now has to do maintenance to remove the extra cache. And since it wasn't left where the original cache was, it may be difficult for the owner to find.

 

I'd send them a note acknowledging that they were trying to be helpful but explain why you would prefer them not to replace caches for you in the future. Some will tell you as well that should you go to do maintenance and find your original cache is still in place, that you should delete their find log. Some will tell you to delete their find log in any case. Whether you delete their log is up to you. I merely suggest you refrain from impugning some motive on what they did other than trying to helpful.

[+Team Geofrog]

That's not cool unless they had your permission. I agree with checking on your cache first then deleting the log if necessary. I did have someone change my container, which was weird.

[+AneMae]

I think they should log the DNF. You can check on the cache and post a note on its status. If all is well they can always try again. To throw down a cache and then claim a find is just lame. Not something I would ever do. I would delete their log, check the cache, post the appropriate note and go forward from there.

[+AneMae]

I do however think that in a case like this it is warranted:

From the log of a local cache:

 

Located this cache quickly, but as I reached for it, it fell into a hole. Not a deep hole, but one requiring a looooooong pair of tweezers to retrieve. Poorly placed by the last cacher. When it gets retrieved, the hole should be mostly filled in so as to prevent this from happening again. Will have to return to try again. For now, this cache is very difficult to access...

 

Trying to dig it out only made it get more deeply ensconced in the tree hole. Then it suddenly disappeared into the bowels of the tree! Hole stuffed, new container placed, SL. Available for finding again! TFTC.

[knowschad]

That's quite typical of a numbers cacher, and that is likely how they got so many finds.

Having cached with some serious "number hounds", I would beg to differ with your statement, particularly the last part. It is arguable as to whether or not it is typical of them, but as to being how they got so many finds... that is just plain wrong. They got them with park & grabs.

 

They did so because they thought they were being helpful. Given that the cache had many finds it would seem to be a fairly easy one to find. You didn't say if the the two DNFs were the most recent logs or not. Sometimes, if you see cache has been found many times and suddenly gets a couple of DNFs, that could be a sign the cache has gone missing. Some cachers will replace a cache in this situation for the owner.

 

Now, despite the good intentions, replacing a cache this way, without permission, is not always being helpful. Unless someone in the group had found the cache before, they really can't know for sure where the cache was hidden or even what the container looked like. They may be leaving something for others to find, but which is completely different than the cache owner intended. Furthermore, there is a chance the original cache is still there. Now there are two cache to find - one that cache owner left and this new one that may be different. The cache owner now has to do maintenance to remove the extra cache. And since it wasn't left where the original cache was, it may be difficult for the owner to find.

 

I'd send them a note acknowledging that they were trying to be helpful but explain why you would prefer them not to replace caches for you in the future. Some will tell you as well that should you go to do maintenance and find your original cache is still in place, that you should delete their find log. Some will tell you to delete their find log in any case. Whether you delete their log is up to you. I merely suggest you refrain from impugning some motive on what they did other than trying to helpful.

+1 Well put in all ways. Thanks for saving me the typing.

[+zodiac73]

I would check that your original is intact, then remove the new container, delete their log, and post a maintenance note that you "checked the original container and everything is in good condition."

 

Absolutely agree with this.

 

I have a local cache I have already found on watch list, recently it got NM'd as it was letting water in and the log was mush. I emailed the CO to check they didn't mind me sticking my nose in and placing a throw down as I pass it on the way to work and they live further away.

 

Placing a throw down to log a find? Just take the DNF and wait to see the next few logs on it.

 

Sheesh!!

[+Walts Hunting]

I would delete the log. Guidelines require the finder to find the cache and sign the log. Leaving a new container is not about helping. It is about only selfishly caring about your count. Let's not glorify those people.

 

I had that happen one time. Went out and took a picture of the new cache container only inches form the one I had left and posted it with a log about required guidelines.

[knowschad]

I would delete the log. Guidelines require the finder to find the cache and sign the log. Leaving a new container is not about helping. It is about only selfishly caring about your count. Let's not glorify those people.

 

I had that happen one time. Went out and took a picture of the new cache container only inches form the one I had left and posted it with a log about required guidelines.

 

OK. Here we go again!

[+CanadianRockies]

I've found thousands of caches, but I've also DNFed dozens of 1-star difficulties. Sometimes, these turn out to be missing. Sometimes, however, a newbie will find it a few days later with a comment that it was a "quick find." We all have blindspots at times.

 

The closest I've come to doing a throwdown cache is when I've found the logbook (and sometimes swag) lying on the ground without a container. Then, I'll try to gather everything up, sign the log, put everything in a new container, hide it where I think it belongs, and give the owner specific details for finding it.

 

Throwdowns can create problems for cache owners, particularly when they result in two containers being present. They also can cause problems for other geocachers. I've unknownly signed a throwdown log, and the owner requested that people who did so come back to find and sign the real log. I did so.

 

So far, nobody has done a throwdown for one of my caches. If it does happen, however, then I'd probably delete the throwdown find as a "bogus" find. According to Groundspeak's guidelines:

 

Owner is responsible for geocache page upkeep. As the owner of your geocache listing, your responsibility includes quality control of all posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off-topic or otherwise inappropriate.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

I would check that your original is intact, then remove the new container, delete their log, and post a maintenance note that you "checked the original container and everything is in good condition."

 

+1

 

But I would also send an email directly to the cachers in question, and politely explain why you deleted their log.

[+popokiiti]

In the middle of nowhere, miles (and hours) from the nearest town, on a backwoods logging road, we found a cache. Signed the log and as we were replacing it, it fell way down the hollow stump which was clinging to a vertical bank. Not being as young or as slim as I'd like to be, couldn't get it, so we left a temporary cache to save the CO a trip. Also left a note saying if the next cachers could retrieve the original, they were welcome to keep our temporary (small cammoed lock and lock.) The next cachers were younger, slimmer,.....and did!

I wouldn't place a cache because I DNFd it - that's just me. If it were my cache and a replacement had been placed, I would check and see if the original was still there. That would dictate how I'd proceed from there. I'd try to be pleasant, treating others as I wish to be treated.

[+BAMBOOZLE]

That's quite typical of a numbers cacher, and that is likely how they got so many finds.

Having cached with some serious "number hounds", I would beg to differ with your statement, particularly the last part. It is arguable as to whether or not it is typical of them, but as to being how they got so many finds... that is just plain wrong. They got them with park & grabs.

 

They did so because they thought they were being helpful. Given that the cache had many finds it would seem to be a fairly easy one to find. You didn't say if the the two DNFs were the most recent logs or not. Sometimes, if you see cache has been found many times and suddenly gets a couple of DNFs, that could be a sign the cache has gone missing. Some cachers will replace a cache in this situation for the owner.

 

Now, despite the good intentions, replacing a cache this way, without permission, is not always being helpful. Unless someone in the group had found the cache before, they really can't know for sure where the cache was hidden or even what the container looked like. They may be leaving something for others to find, but which is completely different than the cache owner intended. Furthermore, there is a chance the original cache is still there. Now there are two cache to find - one that cache owner left and this new one that may be different. The cache owner now has to do maintenance to remove the extra cache. And since it wasn't left where the original cache was, it may be difficult for the owner to find.

 

I'd send them a note acknowledging that they were trying to be helpful but explain why you would prefer them not to replace caches for you in the future. Some will tell you as well that should you go to do maintenance and find your original cache is still in place, that you should delete their find log. Some will tell you to delete their find log in any case. Whether you delete their log is up to you. I merely suggest you refrain from impugning some motive on what they did other than trying to helpful.

+1 Well put in all ways. Thanks for saving me the typing.

 

+ 2 for all.....on one of my tougher caches its not unusual for there to be three or so caches there at one time

Its just folks that mean well trying to help out.

[AZcachemeister]

They did so because they thought they were being helpful. Given that the cache had many finds it would seem to be a fairly easy one to find. You didn't say if the the two DNFs were the most recent logs or not. Sometimes, if you see cache has been found many times and suddenly gets a couple of DNFs, that could be a sign the cache has gone missing. Some cachers will replace a cache in this situation for the owner.

 

Now, despite the good intentions, replacing a cache this way, without permission, is not always being helpful. Unless someone in the group had found the cache before, they really can't know for sure where the cache was hidden or even what the container looked like. They may be leaving something for others to find, but which is completely different than the cache owner intended. Furthermore, there is a chance the original cache is still there. Now there are two cache to find - one that cache owner left and this new one that may be different. The cache owner now has to do maintenance to remove the extra cache. And since it wasn't left where the original cache was, it may be difficult for the owner to find.

 

I'd send them a note acknowledging that they were trying to be helpful but explain why you would prefer them not to replace caches for you in the future. Some will tell you as well that should you go to do maintenance and find your original cache is still in place, that you should delete their find log. Some will tell you to delete their find log in any case. Whether you delete their log is up to you. I merely suggest you refrain from impugning some motive on what they did other than trying to helpful.

 

Let's face it, they were only trying to help themselves to another smiley.

 

It's only happened once, but anyone posting a 'find' for a throw-down on one of my hides is going to get deleted faster than hot butter on a glass doorknob.

 

I can't tell you how many caches I didn't find where I was sure the original was missing.

I took the DNF and logged as such. I have never felt compelled to leave a 'throw-down' and log a find on a cache that may or may not have been missing.

Even in the unlikely case I felt a replacement was needed (for a cache I didn't find), I would certainly only post a 'NOTE', and not claim a find.

[+Totem Clan]

Let's face it, they were only trying to help themselves to another smiley.

 

It's only happened once, but anyone posting a 'find' for a throw-down on one of my hides is going to get deleted faster than hot butter on a glass doorknob.

 

I can't tell you how many caches I didn't find where I was sure the original was missing.

I took the DNF and logged as such. I have never felt compelled to leave a 'throw-down' and log a find on a cache that may or may not have been missing.

Even in the unlikely case I felt a replacement was needed (for a cache I didn't find), I would certainly only post a 'NOTE', and not claim a find.

Same here. I wouldn't do it and wouldn't want anyone to do it to my caches.

[+jellis]

I had two different incidents.

One of mine is a black nano on a black bench. I thought it strange when many were saying before how evil it was to how easy. Contacted a GeoFriend who checked it and found a 35mm hanging in a tree with a piece of paper from a phone book in it for a log.

The friend sent me a photo of the logs. I contacted them, letting them know they didn't find the cache. All but one graciously deleted their own logs without me saying anything. The one who didn't was the one at the top of the log. That one I deleted his log and sent a message just letting him know it wasn't the cache (not pointing finger) and he never responded.

 

The other one was one I just took care of the other day at a different cache. I had to move this cache couple of times due to muggles. So recently a few cachers mentioned two caches, one having a Raincheck from Safeway for a log. I went out there and found out the cacher who put out the other cache actually PAF who didn't know I moved the cache and suggested putting a new container to help me.

That one I didn't blame anyone except that they should learn to read the cache page cause I mentioned moving it and the hint said where the cache was.

I removed the cache but saved the log and added it to my container.

 

I would suggest contacting the cachers and inform them you appreciate them helping but would be nice to contact owners first before replacing. Let them know the container was still there and they should come back and find it. But me if they were from far away I would let them slide.

[+The_Incredibles_]

This one?

 

Found it 01/28/2012 Caching with Roelsch on an almost perfect day for hiking the trails. Signed log as MG, TR and RO for brevity. Given the last two no-finds we decided to leave a replacement 35mm film canister in the logical spot. Good job. Thanks, medic161 & RadioactiveGrl, for placing this cache. – Mean Gene and the Rooter, St. Louis MO

 

Didn't find it 11/26/2011 Caching with granddaughter, supergirl 137, 1 of 8 on list today. Looks as if the hiding place was struck by lightning or burned area, was tornned up.

 

Didn't find it 09/10/2011 Seems there has been a lot of work recently in the area, couldnt make the find. Wonder if this one has gone missing.

 

Looks very likely this one very likely was missing, for several months. 2 experienced cachers couldn't find it.

 

I would say in this circumstance replacing your cache was a nice thing for them to do. Technically, they didn't find it, but I think they deserve a smilie.

Edited February 5, 2012 by The_Incredibles_

[+power69]

Ahhhh. ye olde throwdown. I have a couple caches with this constant problem.

[+GeoStar Husband]

I've placed a replacement container... Found the original container about 100 ft from GZ. Container was broken, lid was missing, contents, log, pencil and TB were scattered through the area. I picked everything back up, put it in the original container, then put that inside a spare that I had, re-hid in the location I believe was right, emailed the CO and informed them of the situation and exactly where I hid it. That is the closest to a throwdown I could ever get. I still do not know if it was the "for sure right thing" to do, as I never heard from the CO, but I have watched the logs and not seen any mention of it being wrong or anything. I just couldn't leave it scattered about or in a no lid container to end up ruined...

 

Meh, whattya do...

[+lamoracke]

yeah, my opinion it sounds like more of a helping one self to another find than helping the CO. I would only replace cachers with owner's permission, unless I knew the CO would not have minded as I know them.

 

As far as deleting logs go, if the original was there, I might be tempted to. I just delete so few logs, I hate doing so....but if someone just absently replaced the cache without asking me and the original was clearly there, I would be very tempted to do so.

[+DanOCan]

I tend to assume people had good intentions so I'd look at it as if they were trying to do me a favour.

 

I would perform a maintenance visit. I'd also contact the throwdown cachers and let them know the outcome of my check.

 

"Went out and checked on xxxxx. It was there so I have removed your replacement container. Thanks for trying to help me out. Considering you actually DNF'ed the cache I'll let you decide if you want to edit your log from a Find to a DNF."

 

"Went out and checked on xxxxx. It was indeed missing. I have [left your container as the replacement/replaced your container with one of my own]. Thanks for helping me out, although a NM log could have accomplished the same thing and saved you a container."

 

I wouldn't go as far as to delete their log. If they were trying to help you out deleting the log is kind of a "no good deed goes unpunished" sort of thing and if they really were doing it just so they could pump their numbers then deleting their log is likely to lead to more angst than it would be worth. Those types get very angry when you mess with their precious numbers.

[+A & J Tooling]

I've been to a couple of caches that were replaced by someone before me and sure enough I find two containers within 20 feet of each other. Oh well, this is between the co and the person replacing the cache.

[+briansnat]

If it's the pair of cachers who I think it is, they are well known for doing this. Many of their "finds" are these sort of "favors". I'd delete their logs without hesitation.

Edited February 6, 2012 by briansnat

[+Hoosier Ranger]

I once looked for a cache and was led to a post with a hook, but no container. My friend, who had previously found the cache, said "Yep, it used to be there." I debated what to do, and then hung a matchbox container with a signed logsheet on the hook. (This series had been plagued by cache-stealing muggles.) I thought what I did was o.k., and made reference to it in the log. On the other hand, the same friend and I were doing a different series once and we both found different containers a few feet apart with no reference to a replacement. We signed both logs to be safe. The CO was irate with the (experienced) cacher who threw down an expensive "replacement," but more than a year later cachers were still finding both containers.

[+bflentje]

That's quite typical of a numbers cacher, and that is likely how they got so many finds.

Having cached with some serious "number hounds", I would beg to differ with your statement, particularly the last part. It is arguable as to whether or not it is typical of them, but as to being how they got so many finds... that is just plain wrong. They got them with park & grabs.

+1 Well put in all ways. Thanks for saving me the typing.

 

Yeah, I agree. I cache big time for the numbers and I've only thrown down caches three times out of nearly 5800 finds. How does three throwdowns equate to big numbers?

[+Turtle_Sask]

I would check that your original is intact, then remove the new container, delete their log, and post a maintenance note that you "checked the original container and everything is in good condition."

 

could not agree more with this

[+wimseyguy]

I generally do not condone throwdown caches at all. However, if Mrs Incredible has correctly sniffed out the cache in question, you had a friendly DNF posted two months ago that should have given you adequate cause to do a quick maintenance run.

11/29/2011 fishin'buds couldn't find it Illinois

Caching with granddaughter, supergirl 137, 1 of 8 on list today. Looks as if the hiding place was struck by lightning or burned area, was tornned up.

Don't stow thrones in grass houses.

[+Harry Dolphin]

They did so because they thought they were being helpful. Given that the cache had many finds it would seem to be a fairly easy one to find. You didn't say if the the two DNFs were the most recent logs or not. Sometimes, if you see cache has been found many times and suddenly gets a couple of DNFs, that could be a sign the cache has gone missing. Some cachers will replace a cache in this situation for the owner.

 

Really? Would you like to buy a bridge? They did not find the cache. That's a DNF. If s/he wished to help the CO without asking, s/he still did not find the cache. Logging it without finding it tells the story. S/he just wanted the smiley.

[+AneMae]

They did so because they thought they were being helpful. Given that the cache had many finds it would seem to be a fairly easy one to find. You didn't say if the the two DNFs were the most recent logs or not. Sometimes, if you see cache has been found many times and suddenly gets a couple of DNFs, that could be a sign the cache has gone missing. Some cachers will replace a cache in this situation for the owner.

 

Really? Would you like to buy a bridge? They did not find the cache. That's a DNF. If s/he wished to help the CO without asking, s/he still did not find the cache. Logging it without finding it tells the story. S/he just wanted the smiley.

 

+1

[+Sol seaker]

They did so because they thought they were being helpful. Given that the cache had many finds it would seem to be a fairly easy one to find. You didn't say if the the two DNFs were the most recent logs or not. Sometimes, if you see cache has been found many times and suddenly gets a couple of DNFs, that could be a sign the cache has gone missing. Some cachers will replace a cache in this situation for the owner.

 

Now, despite the good intentions, replacing a cache this way, without permission, is not always being helpful. Unless someone in the group had found the cache before, they really can't know for sure where the cache was hidden or even what the container looked like. They may be leaving something for others to find, but which is completely different than the cache owner intended. Furthermore, there is a chance the original cache is still there. Now there are two cache to find - one that cache owner left and this new one that may be different. The cache owner now has to do maintenance to remove the extra cache. And since it wasn't left where the original cache was, it may be difficult for the owner to find.

 

I'd send them a note acknowledging that they were trying to be helpful but explain why you would prefer them not to replace caches for you in the future. Some will tell you as well that should you go to do maintenance and find your original cache is still in place, that you should delete their find log. Some will tell you to delete their find log in any case. Whether you delete their log is up to you. I merely suggest you refrain from impugning some motive on what they did other than trying to helpful.

 

Toz,

I've got to disagree with you on this one.

 

The issue isn't their motive.

The issue is did they find the cache?

No, they did not find the cache. Then they have no legitimate claim to log a find.

 

Throw-downs are not finds.

They are a pretty slimy way to cache if you ask me.

 

The CO should check the cache, remove the throw-down, delete the log, and leave a maintenance note on the cache page saying what was done.

 

No signature, means no find, means no smiley.

 

If enough cache owners starting deleting throw-down logs, they might stop doing it.

[+Moose Mob]

Throw down caches should not be 'automatic', but I can see where the temptation can come from. I have replaced a couple caches where I know the cache owner or I was with a cacher that 'for sure' knew where the cache was. For the numbers? no, not at all. It's to save the CO a trip or similar. I have replaced damaged containers for the same reason. I can log a soggy log book as easier than I can replace it, but I will replace it if I can.

 

My personal mindset is that missing caches with missing owners need to have the DNF and eventually a NA so it can go away and a new or active cacher has a place for their cache. But that won't stop me from helping a friend.

[+tozainamboku]

Some people just need to feel like their knickers are bunched up.

 

I'll agree that if you didn't find the cache and you left a throw down you still didn't find the cache. But I'm certainly am not going to get my underwear bunched up if someone logs a find online.

 

I suppose they do so because they have no other way to mark that they've done maintenance. Sure they could post a DNF like the string of DNFs they saw indicating the cache might be missing. But then will next cacher know the cache has been replaced? Will the cache owner even know the cache was replaced? Logging a find online updates the last found date and the cache will show as having been found in GSAK or some other tool. In addition, posting a found log marks the cache as completed in that person's list. The cache can be excluded from searches in the future. The person who left the throw down isn't likely to come back to "find" the cache they just left. They mark it found and that takes care of that problem.

 

The problem is believing that the find count as some sort of score and then making up rules for when you can use the find log to score. You get upset that others aren't using the find log the way you want it used and you assume that the only motive for doing so is to increase one's score. It's not a score, so you don't need to get upset if someone get a "point" for a cache they didn't find.

 

I'm happy for you if you are happy that your find count is the number of caches you found according to your definition of a find. But for heaven's sake stop calling it the score and stop worrying that someone might have, on some occasion, used the find log in a way you think is inappropriate. And stop insisting that their motivation is to bump their non-existent score. And if it turns out that their motivation is to inflate their scores, then aren't they being even sillier if you can tell them there's no score so you're not impressed by their find count?

 

I know I may not change one puritan mind. But I hope that others who are on the fence will come away with the understanding that "There's no prize, no leaderboard, and no trophy, so there's no reason to get your knickers in a twist about anyone else's definition of a find."

Edited February 7, 2012 by tozainamboku

[Mr.Yuck]

They did so because they thought they were being helpful. Given that the cache had many finds it would seem to be a fairly easy one to find. You didn't say if the the two DNFs were the most recent logs or not. Sometimes, if you see cache has been found many times and suddenly gets a couple of DNFs, that could be a sign the cache has gone missing. Some cachers will replace a cache in this situation for the owner.

 

Really? Would you like to buy a bridge? They did not find the cache. That's a DNF. If s/he wished to help the CO without asking, s/he still did not find the cache. Logging it without finding it tells the story. S/he just wanted the smiley.

 

There is no doubt in my mind throwdowner's think they are doing a good deed and helping out. Even though I despise throw-downs, I think most (but not all), are not doing it just for the smiley.

 

You know the only throw-down I've ever had at one of my caches? It was about 3-4 years ago, when car GPS's became cheap, and "find caches with your Tom-Tom or Nuvi" was all the rage. Someone with 3 finds on their first day of caching with a Nuvi (they said so in their log) threw one down, and I went back a few days later, and it was right where it was supposed to be. I'd definitely file that under thinking you're helping out, not for the numbers.

[+Totem Clan]

Some people just need to feel like their knickers are bunched up.

 

I'll agree that if you didn't find the cache and you left a throw down you still didn't find the cache. But I'm certainly am not going to get my underwear bunched up if someone logs a find online.

 

I suppose they do so because they have no other way to mark that they've done maintenance. Sure they could post a DNF like the string of DNFs they saw indicating the cache might be missing. But then will next cacher know the cache has been replaced? Will the cache owner even know the cache was replaced? Logging a find online updates the last found date and the cache will show as having been found in GSAK or some other tool. In addition, posting a found log marks the cache as completed in that person's list. The cache can be excluded from searches in the future. The person who left the throw down isn't likely to come back to "find" the cache they just left. They mark it found and that takes care of that problem.

 

The problem is believing that the find count as some sort of score and then making up rules for when you can use the find log to score. You get upset that others aren't using the find log the way you want it used and you assume that the only motive for doing so is to increase one's score. It's not a score, so you don't need to get upset if someone get a "point" for a cache they didn't find.

 

I'm happy for you if you are happy that your find count is the number of caches you found according to your definition of a find. But for heaven's sake stop calling it the score and stop worrying that someone might have, on some occasion, used the find log in a way you think is inappropriate. And stop insisting that their motivation is to bump their non-existent score. And if it turns out that their motivation is to inflate their scores, then aren't they being even sillier if you can tell them there's no score so you're not impressed by their find count?

 

I know I may not change one puritan mind. But I hope that others who are on the fence will come away with the understanding that "There's no prize, no leaderboard, and no trophy, so there's no reason to get your knickers in a twist about anyone else's definition of a find."

This has nothing to do with find count. I couldn't care less about that. This has to do with cacher creating geolitter. If the CO has not told you that you can leave a new container YOU ARE NOT HELPING!!!!!!

 

You want to log a find on evey cache if you find it or not, whatever. Your not being helpful to those that come to the later, but that's not the point here. You are placing an unaproved, unreviewed cache. Plain and simple.

[+tozainamboku]

This has nothing to do with find count. I couldn't care less about that. This has to do with cacher creating geolitter. If the CO has not told you that you can leave a new container YOU ARE NOT HELPING!!!!!!

 

You want to log a find on evey cache if you find it or not, whatever. Your not being helpful to those that come to the later, but that's not the point here. You are placing an unaproved, unreviewed cache. Plain and simple.

Seems like we mostly agree. You should look at my earlier post. Leaving a replacement without the owner's permission can cause more problems than it solves.

 

Some who oppose this practice seem to want to make the motive be the smiley someone gets for logging a find on the cache after leaving the replacement. Since there's no prize, no leaderboard, and no trophy, whether someone gets a smiley for this or not does not make any difference. I will continue to object to the puritan mindset that blames all the problems of geocaching on people trying to boost their find count.

 

That said, people replacing a cache are not necessarily placing an unapproved, unreviewed cache. Some owners seem more than happy to have their missing cache replaced for them. This has been show most clearly on some power trails and with cache owners who include a GCRM link on their page. If the cache location seems fairly obvious, you are replacing a cache similar to on that was reviewed and you'd be hard press to argue that the throw down is violating any guidelines that the original cache wasn't violating. In many cases, a throw down on a simple p&g type hide ends up being helpful. The problems occur when someone assumes this is an "ordinary" p&g when in fact the cache owner used a special container or some unique camouflage or hiding style. That's why, IMO, getting the cache owner's permission is important.