Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Totem Clan

Found It = Didn't Find It - Discussion thread.

Recommended Posts

Please post any debate or comments you may have on the topic off "Found It = Didn't Find It" here so we can keep that thread angst free as the OP wanted. Thank you and keep it above the belt.

Share this post


Link to post

Q10 there are rules,

any game is most fun with rules, and the more who play, the more clear the rules need to be,

short and simple.

a CO is supposed to delete online finds, if they can not see the name in the log book,

but offcourse log books get wet or lost, ok fine they can not check it then, and must approve them all,

that is offcourse quite normal.

also a page can fall out of a fully good log book, it is very hard to prove,

that is why I newer delete logs, unless people them self write stuff like : did not find or sign the log,

or I put a paper some where else, it looked like a cache :-)

then I know for sure they did not find it, and offcourse it must be deleted.

if I do find a name in the logbook, that is a full prove they did actually find it,

it just dont work the other way arround.

 

you see the joke : I drive tru your city, see it all, go home and log all caches in the city..

NO WAY...

Share this post


Link to post

In all honesty TC, there did used to be some discussion back in the old location, but nothing like we've seen here, or I predicted the day it was moved. :laughing:

 

We logged one cache as a find without signing the log book....

 

We found the cache in a hole on the topside of a fallen tree, but the hole had filled up with water and then frozen solid.

No matter how we tried, we couldn't get the cache out of the ice.

 

We logged it as found because we were unable to sign the log due to circumstances not intended by the cache owner.

 

I'm pretty sure we emailed the cache owner as well to make them aware of why our name wasn't on the log.

 

Perhaps others would have logged that as a DNF?

 

I would have posted a note, and I have, at least once I can remember in the frigid frozen Tundra of Canada. OK, it was like 10 miles from Niagara Falls, but still. I returned to that cache 2 weeks later, as I was working on a series anyways.

 

So even though I wouldn't do it personally, I would accept photographic evidence of one of my caches frozen in place, I'm not like super hardcore guy or anything. It has not happened to one of my caches, but I've seen it happen (along with photos being allowed) in my area a handful of times.

Share this post


Link to post

In all honesty TC, there did used to be some discussion back in the old location, but nothing like we've seen here, or I predicted the day it was moved. :laughing:

 

Yeah I know what you're saying. :(

 

I use to read the 'Hunt' threads a lot. They were all fairly angst free. Kinda a nice break from the norm around here.

 

I'm glad it hasn't gotten worse. I'm just trying to stafe off as much as I can.

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks for starting this thread.

 

It seems to that there has been a shift on the way DNF become Smileys over time.

 

It used to be common for those "finds" to consist of find on the place the cache used to be, on having made it to GZ.

 

And now it's MUCH more common for those finds to be on the film can that the "finder" left behind. Throwdowns have been around a while, but they now seem much commoner; with many cachers feeling that this is entirely correct behavior - that they're doing the caching community a favor by replacing the missing cache.

Share this post


Link to post

In all honesty TC, there did used to be some discussion back in the old location, but nothing like we've seen here, or I predicted the day it was moved. :laughing:

 

We logged one cache as a find without signing the log book....

 

We found the cache in a hole on the topside of a fallen tree, but the hole had filled up with water and then frozen solid.

No matter how we tried, we couldn't get the cache out of the ice.

 

We logged it as found because we were unable to sign the log due to circumstances not intended by the cache owner.

 

I'm pretty sure we emailed the cache owner as well to make them aware of why our name wasn't on the log.

 

Perhaps others would have logged that as a DNF?

 

I would have posted a note, and I have, at least once I can remember in the frigid frozen Tundra of Canada. OK, it was like 10 miles from Niagara Falls, but still. I returned to that cache 2 weeks later, as I was working on a series anyways.

 

So even though I wouldn't do it personally, I would accept photographic evidence of one of my caches frozen in place, I'm not like super hardcore guy or anything. It has not happened to one of my caches, but I've seen it happen (along with photos being allowed) in my area a handful of times.

+1

 

I've come up angainst a few times while living in Alaska and North Dakota. I always post note and then if the CO tells me it's OK I'll post a find. I would accept it also if it was clear that you were at the site found the hide spot but due to conditions not itended could not get the cache that was still in place.

 

Here's a log of mine much the same.

Found it

 

Solved the puzzle earlier and came by to grab the cache today while on the way to the SWAG event. We found the hide site but we couldn't get the cache out. It has slipped from it's hide spot and we had nothing with us to help recover it.

 

Claiming as a find with the owners premission. Thanks again.

 

The final point was a pole about 7 foot high with the cache inside and hooked to the lip. The cache had slid down inside the pole. I DNF'd it and emailed the owner to let her know what had happened. She told me thanks and to log a find so I did.

I had a hide in Minnesota and the same thing had happened to it. One group DNF'd but said they could see the cache. They thought it was planned liked that. I gave them premission to log a find and posted a note to the cache and disabled it till I could get out there the next weekend. Thankfully a local cacher read the logs and came prepared and fished the cache out for me.

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks for starting this thread.

 

It seems to that there has been a shift on the way DNF become Smileys over time.

 

It used to be common for those "finds" to consist of find on the place the cache used to be, on having made it to GZ.

 

And now it's MUCH more common for those finds to be on the film can that the "finder" left behind. Throwdowns have been around a while, but they now seem much commoner; with many cachers feeling that this is entirely correct behavior - that they're doing the caching community a favor by replacing the missing cache.

There is a seires here in Oklahoma where the containers are secured to a tree or post or so on. They rarely go missing. Well one day a big numbers cacher came through and 'found' about 30 or so of them, along with some other caches in one day. Over half of them a were throw down finds. The cacher pitched a fit on the cache page when they were all deleted. Local cachers quickly cleaned up the geolitter that was left behind. All the caches that the cacher claimed as finds after that were checked and a few more throw downs were found and deleted over the next 2 days. The cacher then protested and vowed never to cache in the state again as though that was somehow going to punish us for not allowing throw downs.

Share this post


Link to post

 

The one thing that I have to say about that quote is that while Jeremy is the CEO of Groundspeak, but that does not make his opinion any more important or correct than yours or mine.

 

It may be an opinion, but his influence on the game is much greater than you or I. Language of location is emphasized, rather than containers. Unless the cache is a "challenge" type, such as up a tree, on a cliff or a purposely difficult hide, I don't see any problem with not signing the log if the container is sighted.

Share this post


Link to post

It may be an opinion, but his influence on the game is much greater than you or I. Language of location is emphasized, rather than containers. Unless the cache is a "challenge" type, such as up a tree, on a cliff or a purposely difficult hide, I don't see any problem with not signing the log if the container is sighted.

The two parts I bolded (is that a word :unsure: ) are the keys to that statement.

 

On the surface of it I would agree. However, as you stated that is how you feel not how eveyone feels. For that reason alone I will not log a frozen, missing, stuck, and so on, cache without the CO approval. They may not see things the way I do.

 

Also I would go a bit beyond just saying 'if the cache is sighted' and add but was not recoverable when it normally should have been. (However, unless I missread you that is exactly how you intended it.)

Share this post


Link to post

It may be an opinion, but his influence on the game is much greater than you or I. Language of location is emphasized, rather than containers. Unless the cache is a "challenge" type, such as up a tree, on a cliff or a purposely difficult hide, I don't see any problem with not signing the log if the container is sighted.

The two parts I bolded (is that a word :unsure: ) are the keys to that statement.

 

On the surface of it I would agree. However, as you stated that is how you feel not how eveyone feels. For that reason alone I will not log a frozen, missing, stuck, and so on, cache without the CO approval. They may not see things the way I do.

 

Also I would go a bit beyond just saying 'if the cache is sighted' and add but was not recoverable when it normally should have been. (However, unless I missread you that is exactly how you intended it.)

 

If the attitudes reach the point that finders expect to be able to log a find without signing, then it's gone too far. Ordinarily if they do find it and cannot sign in because of extraneous circumstances, I think most COs would allow it.

Share this post


Link to post

Crossing over from the other thread:

 

Posted Yesterday, 02:02 PM

 

I would have snapped a photo and logged a find. Around here, if someone can't get the log out for whatever reason, usually a nano, they 'photolog'.

 

Sometimes you're presented with situations the CO didn't intend. Like this:

 

661d1acb-c34a-4572-9381-1a1ccfad3d5c.jpg

 

Read Log Entry

 

Just because you were there doesn't qualify a find. A case in point:

 

:D Found it 03/07/20--

I am claiming I found it even though it was not there, because my kids and I got very muddy feet, mosquito bites and cuts from the bushes. Nice area but disappointed in no cache

Share this post


Link to post

Q10 there are rules,

any game is most fun with rules, and the more who play, the more clear the rules need to be,

short and simple.

a CO is supposed to delete online finds, if they can not see the name in the log book,

but offcourse log books get wet or lost, ok fine they can not check it then, and must approve them all,

that is offcourse quite normal.

also a page can fall out of a fully good log book, it is very hard to prove,

that is why I newer delete logs, unless people them self write stuff like : did not find or sign the log,

or I put a paper some where else, it looked like a cache :-)

then I know for sure they did not find it, and offcourse it must be deleted.

if I do find a name in the logbook, that is a full prove they did actually find it,

it just dont work the other way arround.

 

you see the joke : I drive tru your city, see it all, go home and log all caches in the city..

NO WAY...

The CO is supposed to delete logs that bogus, counterfeit, off-topic, or otherwise inappropriate. Nowhere is there any rule that says a CO must delete online logs if they don't find a name in the log book. And I mean nowhere. I challenge you to find me where is says that not signing the log book makes an online log bogus, counterfeit, off-topic, or inappropriate.

 

You are correct in saying that by signing the physical it provides a certain level of proof that the cache was found. Certainly it is true that if a find logs appears to be suspicious, a cache owner can look in the phyiscal log book to see if a signature confirms the find. If there is no signature, that, along with whatever seemed suspicious about the log in the first place, may justify deleting the log.

 

What I don't like are the cache owners who delete logs where they know the person actually did find their cache, perhaps even can provide some proof of the find, but did not sign the log for some reason. Then justify this based on an invented rule.

 

The guidelines do indicate that once the physical log is signed you can log the find online. This unusual wording is a result of this guideline being added to indicated that additional logging requirements were no longer a justification for deleting online logs. The wording does leave open the possibility for cache owners to delete logs if the physical log is not signed, so while I don't like it, I have to accept that under the "rules" a cache owner can do this.

 

 

The one thing that I have to say about that quote is that while Jeremy is the CEO of Groundspeak, but that does not make his opinion any more important or correct than yours or mine.

If it weren't for Groundspeak and Geocaching.com we wouldn't have the "find count" or online logs. When Dave Ulmer hid the first geocache he asked that people write something in the log book. He didn't ask that they report back in the newsgroups where he published the coordinates if they found it or not. That may have been an oversight. It seems likely that Dave and the others participating in this new sport would want to share stories about finding these early caches. But it may have also been that Dave didn't want a competition. Just go out and find his cache, trade something, write in the log book, and have fun.

 

Jeremy created a website where in addition to signing the log, you could use the website to report if you found the cache or not. Even then, for the first 8 years or so, the FAQ didn't say anything about logging online and there were no guidelines about when you could log online. Once cache owners were given the ability to delete logs, it was up to the cache owner to decide what online logs were legitimate.

 

There have always been some who want Groundspeak to define what a find is and some to enforce this definition. Supposing that Groundspeak could come up with a definition, how would they enforce it? In the end they rely on cache owners and cache owners will continue to do what they do now. But why even try to define a find in the first place. Most geocachers don't see geocaching as a formal contest with a score. There's no prize, no leaderboard, and no trophy. Insisting on rules because some has gotten their knickers in a twist over what someone else wants to claim is a find seems silly. Yes this is what Jeremy says, but it is also what a lot of geocachers believe.

 

I have to say I enjoy both the Found It = Didn't Find It thread and the discussions it spawns because I find it amusing just how some people can get so worked up over this topic. Just go out an find some geocaches and have fun. Try to write something in the log book if you can, but don't obsess if you you lost your pen or the log is too wet to write on. If you didn't find the cache but you think you still deserve to count it as find, be aware that some will view this as bogus. I wouldn't do it but I probably wouldn't delete your log if I can understand the reason that you did.

Share this post


Link to post

From one of my caches:

 

Found the itzy bitzy...but could not get it out because of the "Abwasserkanalreinigung" that was working there.a woman with a"STOP" sign sent me away very quicl but I was able to tale a photo.

TFTC

 

Me, I wouldn't log it as found but I won't delete the log either, guess it's a judgement call but some of the logs posted in the thread I'd send to the garbage bin in a second.

 

Guess it's "you play your game and I'll play mine" then we can come to the forum and argue about who's right and whose wrong.

Share this post


Link to post

This is not a black and white issue but many view it that way. There are some logs I'd allow in the "Found=DNF" thread and some I wouldn't. To paraphrase Justice Potter Stewart,

 

"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of logs I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description [found it]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it." :lol:

 

Edit: Punctuation

Edited by Trinity's Crew

Share this post


Link to post

For me the concept of "found it" is fairly simple. You had to have found the cache as the CO intened.

 

If the cache is not there at all, you did not find it. (even if you threw down a cache you still did not find the cache you were looking for)

If the cache is broken apart but it is clear the it was the cache and you found more than just a scrap of plastic, you found it. (I would cito it and let the owner know.)

If you found the cache but you can't retreive the cache because you can't solve the puzzle, or climb the tree or whatever else the CO designed to fool you, that is not a loggable find.

If you found the cache but for some reason unplanned by the owner you can't retrieve the cache and/or sign the log that is a find. (I wouldn't log this as a find until I had talked to the owner just to be polite.)

 

This is how I view it. I think it's pretty middle of the road as far as viewpoints on the subject go.

 

The object of the 'game' is to go find caches.

 

.... but of course it's a game where you play for yourself. Do as you wish. Just don't expect everyone to let you play with their cache in a way they don't like.

Share this post


Link to post

I am not making this up.

 

This was the log on one of my earthcaches. It's been deleted, after waiting two weeks after two emails about not doing the earthcache at all.

 

.

 

 

Of course you're not making it up. It's a smartphone app log. In the case of period or punctuation loggers, I'll bet dollars to donuts most of them don't even know their uploading it to a website, and think they're just marking it as found in their phones. At least "TFTC" loggers appear to know they're sending the log to the website and cache owner, as horrifically lame as I personally find such logs to be. :ph34r:

 

If it's any consolation, the guy probably did visit the coordinates of your earthcache, and look at whatever it's physical feature is. :P I'd delete in a heartbeat. Chances of this person sticking with Geocaching and figuring out what to do for earthcaches are infintesimal.

Edited by Mr.Yuck

Share this post


Link to post

Please post any debate or comments you may have on the topic off "Found It = Didn't Find It" here so we can keep that thread angst free as the OP wanted. Thank you and keep it above the belt.

 

I miss this from the main thread - lots of answers refers to this as a start of the debate:

 

--->

I'm definitely sure, that quite a few geocachers from time to time are in this situation. They know that they were there, they don't want to go back to this place (they have been there) - AND they want to get rid of the cache on their geocaching map.

 

Just this:

They want the cache away from the map (to prevent seing the cache again and to avoid it in your next Pocket Quieries).

 

What to do?

If they read this thread they definitely know what to do: Write something about the area etc. - don't mentioned that you didn't found the cache. And then move on - you have been on the spot - the cache is only seen as a mark bringing you here.

 

I really think this is about what we want from geocaching - what is most importent: The box itself or it's surroundings?

--<

Share this post


Link to post

If someone posts a 'find' log without actually visiting the cache, is it worth getting stressed about?. They are only cheating themselves and not harming or inconveniencing anyone else.

Share this post


Link to post

For me the concept of "found it" is fairly simple. You had to have found the cache as the CO intened.

 

Along this line of thinking, is it a "find" if someone finds the final of a multi, but not the other stages? Or doesn't solve a puzzle, but bumps into the final by accident or by cheating as it may be.

Share this post


Link to post

If someone posts a 'find' log without actually visiting the cache, is it worth getting stressed about?. They are only cheating themselves and not harming or inconveniencing anyone else.

 

Eh, maybe you worded that wrong? "If someone posts a find log without actually visiting the cache" sounds like it implies armchair logging. Yes, Groundspeak has taken a stance against that.

Share this post


Link to post

If someone posts a 'find' log without actually visiting the cache, is it worth getting stressed about?. They are only cheating themselves and not harming or inconveniencing anyone else.

 

Not quite. Phony logs can effect others. Fake found it logs can delay necessary owner maintenance and there have been many situations where cachers were enticed into a cache hunt thanks to a recent "find". I know I did it. I know of another cacher who drove over an hour RT to find a cache that had long thought been missing. He did so because someone posted a phony find, causing him to believe that the cache was actually there.

 

Someone posted a fake find on a cache of mine that had a few DNFs. I had planned a maint run, but when I got the fraudulent found it log I called off the maint run. Luckily, a few days later when I re-read the log it sounded somewhat fishy so I made the maint run anyway and sure enough it was a good thing I did. But if there wasn't something in that log that gave me cause to doubt it, I would have assumed my cache was OK and future searchers would have been wasting their time and gas hunting an unfindable cache.

 

When you log that you found a cache you are essentially telling the CO and the community that the cache was there. Because of that fraudulent logs can confuse the cache owner and the geocaching community. Wasting the time and gas of your fellow geocachers is not harmless and does inconvenience other cachers.

Edited by briansnat

Share this post


Link to post

Please post any debate or comments you may have on the topic off "Found It = Didn't Find It" here so we can keep that thread angst free as the OP wanted. Thank you and keep it above the belt.

 

I miss this from the main thread - lots of answers refers to this as a start of the debate:

 

--->

I'm definitely sure, that quite a few geocachers from time to time are in this situation. They know that they were there, they don't want to go back to this place (they have been there) - AND they want to get rid of the cache on their geocaching map.

 

Just this:

They want the cache away from the map (to prevent seing the cache again and to avoid it in your next Pocket Quieries).

 

What to do?

If they read this thread they definitely know what to do: Write something about the area etc. - don't mentioned that you didn't found the cache. And then move on - you have been on the spot - the cache is only seen as a mark bringing you here.

 

I really think this is about what we want from geocaching - what is most importent: The box itself or it's surroundings?

--<

I understand what you're saying but if they clearly Did Not Find they could use the an ignore list to do that. Just saying. ^_^

Edited by Totem Clan

Share this post


Link to post

For me the concept of "found it" is fairly simple. You had to have found the cache as the CO intened.

 

Along this line of thinking, is it a "find" if someone finds the final of a multi, but not the other stages? Or doesn't solve a puzzle, but bumps into the final by accident or by cheating as it may be.

Depends if you're asking me how I would log or what I think others should do.

 

Personally I would not log it that way. I would try and go back and find all the legs or solve the puzzle. I would posted a 'Note' just to let the CO know the cache was found in good shape. I also would ask a cacher not to log a find on my cache that way.

 

Now as far as other cachers with other CO's cache.... whatever floats their boat, but I think they are missing out on part the fun of caching.

Share this post


Link to post

Give me the possibility to click DNF-logs on and off the map as I can with Found-Logs. Then I would use DNF-logs whenever I DNF a cache.

 

Logging DNF as Found, not logging anything, using the Ignore-list, using GSAK to remove the cache etc. is just method to bypass the missing possibility: Clicking DNF-logs on and off the map.

 

Seen from my point of view.

 

(I would never ever log a cache as Found after e.g. 2-3-4 DNF on a cache IF I DNF it!).

Share this post


Link to post

it must be very dumb/lasy people ? or very new people ?

who log a cache as found, if they did not find it and did not sign the log book ?

offcourse beginners can make errors, and that is perfectly fine.

 

I do see on the web page, it is not very clearly defined, at least not on the official page.

one of my CO friends just got a found-log the other day:

we found the cache, but did not sign the log..

 

come on.. it is no FUN at all, just sitting at home logging caches as found.

you need to go out, and look for them, some you find, and some you dont,

the more search time you spend, and the deeper you look, and the more skilled you are,

the more caches you can find. But you can never expect to be able to find them all.

Share this post


Link to post

it must be very dumb/lasy people ? or very new people ?

who log a cache as found, if they did not find it and did not sign the log book ?

offcourse beginners can make errors, and that is perfectly fine.

 

I do see on the web page, it is not very clearly defined, at least not on the official page.

one of my CO friends just got a found-log the other day:

we found the cache, but did not sign the log..

 

come on.. it is no FUN at all, just sitting at home logging caches as found.

you need to go out, and look for them, some you find, and some you dont,

the more search time you spend, and the deeper you look, and the more skilled you are,

the more caches you can find. But you can never expect to be able to find them all.

 

Hmm, but why do you assume they are not telling the truth, perhaps they did find it and not sign for some reason?

 

Perhaps 'found it'on the website should read 'signed log', as 'found it' is a little misleading. For example I found a cache today, there was no pen in the cache, (the clue was not marked BYOP by the way) I had left my pen at the office, so was unable to sign the log. I was not sure if that counted, (which is how I found this thread, searching for an answer). I won't log it as a find, even though I had it in my hands, as it appears that would be bad form,no big deal, I will refind it and sign it later, or not if I can't be bothered, its the hunt that attracts me not the competative logging of finds.

 

But ... you can see how confusion can arise when 'finding it' is not sufficient to entitle you to hit the 'found it' button.

 

Also I wonder, would proof of finding short of signing do? What would happen if you found a cache and dropped of a trackable, but did not sign? Is that sufficient to claim a find? Or what if I took and uploaded a photo of the cache? What if the log has got wet and is unsignable, or missing? Is that considered a find or does the lack of a signed log invalidate the find? Is the signing an integral part of the game or merely verifiable proof of the find?

 

Also if there is a rule that you have to sign to log, where is it? For those who care, it should be easier to look up the rules, as I can't find anything about all this on the website.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Hmm, but why do you assume they are not telling the truth, perhaps they did find it and not sign for some reason?

 

Perhaps 'found it'on the website should read 'signed log', as 'found it' is a little misleading. For example I found a cache today, there was no pen in the cache, (the clue was not marked BYOP by the way) I had left my pen at the office, so was unable to sign the log. I was not sure if that counted, (which is how I found this thread, searching for an answer). I won't log it as a find, even though I had it in my hands, as it appears that would be bad form,no big deal, I will refind it and sign it later, or not if I can't be bothered, its the hunt that attracts me not the competative logging of finds.

 

But ... you can see how confusion can arise when 'finding it' is not sufficient to entitle you to hit the 'found it' button.

 

Also I wonder, would proof of finding short of signing do? What would happen if you found a cache and dropped of a trackable, but did not sign? Is that sufficient to claim a find? Or what if I took and uploaded a photo of the cache? What if the log has got wet and is unsignable, or missing? Is that considered a find or does the lack of a signed log invalidate the find? Is the signing an integral part of the game or merely verifiable proof of the find?

 

Also if there is a rule that you have to sign to log, where is it? For those who care, it should be easier to look up the rules, as I can't find anything about all this on the website.

Been there done that.

 

You found the cache and if not for the lack of I pen could have singed it.

 

There are some cachers that will not find the cache but will still claim a find because they saw where they think cache should have been. That's the type of 'Found It' that is being talked about.

 

If you get the cache but the log is unsignable for whatever reason most cachers would not argue the find.

Share this post


Link to post

I had one the other day where I had to crawl under an electric fence. In the process I got a hand full of stickers. I then walked across the famer's feild. (And yes for those that will ask this is with the land owner premission.) Made it the hide site and found the cache. I pulled the log out and then turned to my son and ask for the pen. His eyes went wide and he said, "I left it in by my seat." :laughing::rolleyes: Anyway we counted it is a find.

Share this post


Link to post
For example I found a cache today, there was no pen in the cache, (the clue was not marked BYOP by the way) I had left my pen at the office, so was unable to sign the log.
FWIW, I've seen logs signed with improvised materials, like mud, blood, charcoal, plant juice, and bug juice. Where there's a will...

 

Also I wonder, would proof of finding short of signing do? What would happen if you found a cache and dropped of a trackable, but did not sign? Is that sufficient to claim a find? Or what if I took and uploaded a photo of the cache? What if the log has got wet and is unsignable, or missing? Is that considered a find or does the lack of a signed log invalidate the find? Is the signing an integral part of the game or merely verifiable proof of the find?
In practice, most cache owners accept alternative proof like the examples you described.

 

My experience is that cache owners that are going to be picky about signatures on the log will mention this in the cache description. For example, for one cache I found, the point was to find the log. The cache owner specified that you had to sign the yellow log to claim a find. That let seekers know that finding the correct log was part of the challenge for that cache, and it also cuts down on people leaving bogus "replacement" logs when they can't find the correct log right away.

 

Also if there is a rule that you have to sign to log, where is it?
For cache owners, the guidelines specify that they can't delete the online log if you've signed the physical log. Elsewhere, the guidelines specify that owners are responsible for deleting bogus, counterfeit, off-topic or otherwise inappropriate online logs. However, the guidelines do not say that online logs without a physical signature are bogus or counterfeit; that determination is up to the cache owner.

 

For cache seekers, there are various general descriptions of what geocaching is, for example:

7. Sign the logbook and return the geocache to its original location.

When you find the cache, sign the logbook and return it to the cache.

The only rules are: if you take something from the geocache, you must leave something in the geocache, and you must write about your visit in the logbook.

Share this post


Link to post
For example I found a cache today, there was no pen in the cache, (the clue was not marked BYOP by the way) I had left my pen at the office, so was unable to sign the log.
FWIW, I've seen logs signed with improvised materials, like mud, blood, charcoal, plant juice, and bug juice. Where there's a will...

 

Also I wonder, would proof of finding short of signing do? What would happen if you found a cache and dropped of a trackable, but did not sign? Is that sufficient to claim a find? Or what if I took and uploaded a photo of the cache? What if the log has got wet and is unsignable, or missing? Is that considered a find or does the lack of a signed log invalidate the find? Is the signing an integral part of the game or merely verifiable proof of the find?
In practice, most cache owners accept alternative proof like the examples you described.

 

My experience is that cache owners that are going to be picky about signatures on the log will mention this in the cache description. For example, for one cache I found, the point was to find the log. The cache owner specified that you had to sign the yellow log to claim a find. That let seekers know that finding the correct log was part of the challenge for that cache, and it also cuts down on people leaving bogus "replacement" logs when they can't find the correct log right away.

 

Also if there is a rule that you have to sign to log, where is it?
For cache owners, the guidelines specify that they can't delete the online log if you've signed the physical log. Elsewhere, the guidelines specify that owners are responsible for deleting bogus, counterfeit, off-topic or otherwise inappropriate online logs. However, the guidelines do not say that online logs without a physical signature are bogus or counterfeit; that determination is up to the cache owner.

 

For cache seekers, there are various general descriptions of what geocaching is, for example:

7. Sign the logbook and return the geocache to its original location.

When you find the cache, sign the logbook and return it to the cache.

The only rules are: if you take something from the geocache, you must leave something in the geocache, and you must write about your visit in the logbook.

 

Ah thank you for the link to the rules and the detailed response. (I am not finding the main website the easiest to navigate around). So basically its down to the individual cache owner, and it would seem that the golden rule is one of courtesy to those who make this pastime possible by maintaining the cache(s). Well that seems fair and reasonable.

 

That is subject to the cache owner having a duty to the game to enforce a basic minimum standard, which is that before logging it you really should actually find the thing. To be honest I am a little suprised that anyone would claim to have found somthing when they hadn't, as that would appear to be no actual, you know, fun. But it takes all sorts I suppose.

 

Thanks for the suggestions re alternative signing media. :) It was a very urban cache so buying a pen would probably have been quicker than finding a plant or bug and opening a vien would perhaps have drawn attention! And keeping my blood inside my body is a long time hobby of mine.

 

On reflection, whatever the rules are, I now realise that Ido not feel I have properly completed a cache unless the log has been signed (otherwise why am I even posting on this thread and worrying about the etiquette of it all), so I will go back early in the morning, with a pen, and sign the log before claiming the cache.

Share this post


Link to post
And keeping my blood inside my body is a long time hobby of mine.
Well, I donate a pint or so every other month, but still, I hope the log signatures used blood from accidental cuts/scrapes, rather than blood drawn for the purpose of the signature.

Share this post


Link to post

My attitude is that it's a game, and as in most games there are rules. One of them is that to log the cache on the web site you have to make an attempt to find it in the field. Or at least, that's how I see it. If you bend or break the rules it's because you're taking it too seriously.

 

So, if I make an attempt at a cache then I feel I have a right to log the cache online.

 

There are several types of possible log, and if I'm not sure that I "found" the cache according to what I see as the usual criteria then I don't use that log type. Most likely I'll log a DNF instead.

 

Can't people see that a DNF is a record of a successful trip that ended in an unsuccessful cache search, and leave it at that? In other words, you logged the cache; it's merely a secondary question of which log type you used.

Edited by Happy Humphrey

Share this post


Link to post

Does anyone else find it odd that we use a lot of high tech stuff - GPS Navigation, computers, cell phones, the internet - but ultimately verification of finds is done via a paper log?

 

Paper log books are horrible. They are inconvenient to check - you have to physically visit them. And they aren't very reliable - if the log is lost or damaged, any online logs not previously verified against the paper log are now unverifiable. Since nobody in their right mind would suggest deleting all such online logs, the paper log is just not reliable.

 

Given that many CO's never check the logs, and the lack of integrity of paper logs even if they do, is it any wonder that some will not bother with little details like finding the cache and signing the log? There is really nothing but their own sense of honor to prevent them. I am not suggesting that I condone people who cheat at this game - I do not see the point of such behavior.

 

But it just seems to me that a more modern verification system would help. I don't really expect that will happen - so really we are left with the honor system here. I can understand being disappointed when some people aren't entirely honest about things - but I don't really see much point in getting upset about it. Give some people a chance to get away with something, and some of them just will.

 

BTW, some of the rationalizations in the other thread are just hilarious. Makes you wonder what else those folks lie to themselves about!

 

Share this post


Link to post

I know what you mean, Mr. B, but the main beauty of the game is the simplicity of the task. Find the cache, sign the log, job done. All the other stuff is peripheral at best.

 

Years ago there was some talk about more sophisticated verification; the obvious one is to have a codeword which you find stuck to the logbook or inside the cache lid, and you have to input this when logging online to verify the find. Clearly there are problems with that approach, and I know that the suggestion was emphatically rejected by Groundspeak.

 

That a cache may be destroyed or muggled before the log entries can be verified undermines the whole verification system, so you're right to point out that it leaves the way open for those who want to kid themselves about how many caches they've found.

There is no easy answer, but I think it would help if cache owners contact people who make it clear that they have DNF'd a cache but logged a find, and point out their error (even if they ultimately accept the "find"). At least that would help discourage the spread of false finding, and make people understand that this practice is not normal.

 

We should go out of our way to discourage "throw-down" cache logs as they impact future finders as well as the cache owner. Luckily they seem limited to the USA and haven't spread further afield (yet).

Share this post


Link to post

Years ago there was some talk about more sophisticated verification; the obvious one is to have a codeword which you find stuck to the logbook or inside the cache lid, and you have to input this when logging online to verify the find. Clearly there are problems with that approach, and I know that the suggestion was emphatically rejected by Groundspeak.

 

One could create small, tear-away "log sheets" for caches that had a serial # (assigned by GS and associated with that cache when the cache is published), and a sequence number. (Preferably not something sequential and easy to guess like 001, 002, 003...) The finder would take one of these sheets from the cache, and enter it into the website to log the cache. When you run out of log sheets, you need maintenance and would need to buy another pad from GS and put it in the cache. This would eliminate most of the fake logs, and it would make non-owner maintenance, throw-downs, etc. pretty much impossible. There are higher-tech, lower maintenance ways to do this. (They'd also likely be more expensive than little pre-printed post-it notes...)

 

Given that GS doesn't seem very interested in this, I'd assume that they just don't see the integrity of the online logs as a big deal - at least not a big enough deal to spend any money on it, or require more from finders and owners..

 

There is no easy answer, but I think it would help if cache owners contact people who make it clear that they have DNF'd a cache but logged a find, and point out their error (even if they ultimately accept the "find"). At least that would help discourage the spread of false finding, and make people understand that this practice is not normal.

 

1. If the CO is absent (a very common theme in the FI=DNF thread), they aren't going to contact bogus finders.

2. If the CO is active, there is often a great reluctance to delete someone's log because of the ensuing drama. Deleting a log, in essence, says "I think you are lying about finding my cache." Calling someone a liar makes them angry. Even people who KNOW they are lying get annoyed when you call them out.

 

Anyway, the above makes me not stress over this very much - we have these vague, nebulous guidelines about bogus logs that one can interpret in different ways, and that mostly aren't enforced anyway. It is no wonder some people just ignore them and do what they want to do. Also it is no wonder that people may log stuff by mistake - I get the impression that some FI=DNF logs I read are the result of someone hitting the wrong button sometimes - a noob mistake, although certainly in many cases there is deceit.

Share this post


Link to post

It says on the cache web page that the logs could contain spoilers and that implies, to me, that you should not read the logs if you wish to hunt for the cache as the cache owner intended. Whether someone has posted a false find or did not find is therefore irrevelant. My partner always reads all the logs before looking for a cache and because of this he will usually find the cache before me. A couple of caches come to mind, GC36ZF8 U2Zooropa (spoiler in the first log entry) and GCYD9H Tooey's Adventure No 1 (the pictures give away the location of the cache)

I have went through a stage of not logging my finds but writing an e-mail to the cache owner which allows you to go into much more detail of your search. It is a pity that Groundspeak don't provide an option about who can view your logs.

Share this post


Link to post

It says on the cache web page that the logs could contain spoilers and that implies, to me, that you should not read the logs if you wish to hunt for the cache as the cache owner intended. Whether someone has posted a false find or did not find is therefore irrevelant. My partner always reads all the logs before looking for a cache and because of this he will usually find the cache before me. A couple of caches come to mind, GC36ZF8 U2Zooropa (spoiler in the first log entry) and GCYD9H Tooey's Adventure No 1 (the pictures give away the location of the cache)

I have went through a stage of not logging my finds but writing an e-mail to the cache owner which allows you to go into much more detail of your search. It is a pity that Groundspeak don't provide an option about who can view your logs.

Yes and no. There are times when I will decide to hunt for a cache base on Found It of DNF logs without reading them.

If I'm traveling I will sort out caches that have not been found recently. False finds will be included in those caches be default. So it is far from irrevelant even when you don't read the logs.

Share this post


Link to post

From the other thread:

 

I'm a believer in "It's not a find if it's not signed". But last weekend I made an exception. There's a run of 60 identical caches SW of Oklahoma City on stretches of country road. They're short pieces of camo painted PVC pipe, one end stuck in the ground and a film cannister resting in the up end. Most were fine. 3 we found the the cannister near the pipe and put it back in the pipe. One we found an empty pipe and looked all around but never found the canister. Since we found the pipe we logged this as a find. Didn't like doing that but we did find the pipe. CO saw our logging of his run and let us know that he knows the one has been missing for a couple of weeks and he needs to get out to replace it.

If you "didn't like doing that," then you didn't have to do it. I'm assuming nobody was holding a gun to your head.

 

I can understand making certain exceptions to one's "it's not a find if it's not signed" belief, but this exception is so far out there that one might start questioning that belief. It seems very likely that you found the cache location. That's quite different than finding the cache.

Edited by CanadianRockies

Share this post


Link to post

From the other thread:

 

I'm a believer in "It's not a find if it's not signed". But last weekend I made an exception. There's a run of 60 identical caches SW of Oklahoma City on stretches of country road. They're short pieces of camo painted PVC pipe, one end stuck in the ground and a film cannister resting in the up end. Most were fine. 3 we found the the cannister near the pipe and put it back in the pipe. One we found an empty pipe and looked all around but never found the canister. Since we found the pipe we logged this as a find. Didn't like doing that but we did find the pipe. CO saw our logging of his run and let us know that he knows the one has been missing for a couple of weeks and he needs to get out to replace it.

If you "didn't like doing that," then you didn't have to do it. I'm assuming nobody was holding a gun to your head.

 

I can understand making certain exceptions to one's "it's not a find if it's not signed" belief, but this exception is so far out there that one might start questioning that belief. It seems very likely that you found the cache location. That's quite different than finding the cache.

The CO that you speak of is very good at replacing/repairing caches. I know for a fact they have been very busy the past week or two with other caching business and will get the caches you speak of fix in less than week. I'm sure they offered because they feel they you should have had those caches also.

 

Log 'em if you want or don't and come back by on the way to 'Spring Fling' in a couple of weeks and get 'em then and meet the CO and a bunch more of us. :D

Share this post


Link to post

From the other thread:

 

I'm a believer in "It's not a find if it's not signed". But last weekend I made an exception. There's a run of 60 identical caches SW of Oklahoma City on stretches of country road. They're short pieces of camo painted PVC pipe, one end stuck in the ground and a film cannister resting in the up end. Most were fine. 3 we found the the cannister near the pipe and put it back in the pipe. One we found an empty pipe and looked all around but never found the canister. Since we found the pipe we logged this as a find. Didn't like doing that but we did find the pipe. CO saw our logging of his run and let us know that he knows the one has been missing for a couple of weeks and he needs to get out to replace it.

If you "didn't like doing that," then you didn't have to do it. I'm assuming nobody was holding a gun to your head.

 

I can understand making certain exceptions to one's "it's not a find if it's not signed" belief, but this exception is so far out there that one might start questioning that belief. It seems very likely that you found the cache location. That's quite different than finding the cache.

 

Not only that (to which I agree), but brings it to everyone's attention that they are PVC pipes stuck in the ground. Against the guidelines. I've run across reviewers who would archive them for guideline violations.

Share this post


Link to post

Not only that (to which I agree), but brings it to everyone's attention that they are PVC pipes stuck in the ground. Against the guidelines. I've run across reviewers who would archive them for guideline violations.

 

3. Geocaches are never buried. If a shovel, trowel or other pointy object is used to dig or break ground, whether in order to hide or to find the cache, then it is not permitted.

 

They're not buried and no "shovel, trowel or other pointy object" was used to place these. Simply pushed into soft ground. Also, if removed there would be no evidence they were ever there. I don't see where any rules were broken in placement.

 

Also, I deleted the log.

Edited by SoonerSoftail

Share this post


Link to post

Not only that (to which I agree), but brings it to everyone's attention that they are PVC pipes stuck in the ground. Against the guidelines. I've run across reviewers who would archive them for guideline violations.

 

3. Geocaches are never buried. If a shovel, trowel or other pointy object is used to dig or break ground, whether in order to hide or to find the cache, then it is not permitted.

 

They're not buried and no "shovel, trowel or other pointy object" was used to place these. Simply pushed into soft ground. Also, if removed there would be no evidence they were ever there. I don't see where any rules were broken in placement.

 

Also, I deleted the log.

 

Many, if not most, reviewers would find that a guideline violation.

Share this post


Link to post

Not only that (to which I agree), but brings it to everyone's attention that they are PVC pipes stuck in the ground. Against the guidelines. I've run across reviewers who would archive them for guideline violations.

 

3. Geocaches are never buried. If a shovel, trowel or other pointy object is used to dig or break ground, whether in order to hide or to find the cache, then it is not permitted.

 

They're not buried and no "shovel, trowel or other pointy object" was used to place these. Simply pushed into soft ground. Also, if removed there would be no evidence they were ever there. I don't see where any rules were broken in placement.

 

Also, I deleted the log.

 

Many, if not most, reviewers would find that a guideline violation.

 

I believe 60 identical PVC pipes pushed into the ground on a rural roadside would pass muster, not unlike a phony sprinkler head. However, it is a strong case for a lameness clause to be written into the guidelines. :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
How is it that this thread has become a discussion on geocaching guideline interpretation?

 

I dunno, but that is the nature of forum threads...

 

I believe 60 identical PVC pipes pushed into the ground on a rural roadside would pass muster, not unlike a phony sprinkler head.

 

While I believe 60 identical PVC pipes pushed into the ground on a rural roadside would pass muster when they were published. But not now.

 

Because NOW the guideline prohibits "breaking the ground". So the phony sprinkler head, if it's on piece of PVC, and driven into the ground no longer meets the guideline. This changed this spring.

 

I sent my own planned multi-cache to appeals, because I was planning to use geo-stakes as stages. PVC or maybe stainless flat rod, driven into the ground with coords in indelible marker. I was told no. As usual, the old stuff is grandfathered.... and likely new stuff is being published, because the reviewer isn't asking about the precise nature of the cache.

 

Back on topic, ie commentary on logging DNFs as Finds - I note that this is really an issue with webcams. People do seem to feel that it's "go to coords, take picture". The webcam part apparently is optional. I owned a webcam cache. I was happy to archive it when it went down for while. Felt bad about deleting the no webcam image logs, and felt bad about not deleting them. No fun, either way.

Share this post


Link to post

Back on topic, ie commentary on logging DNFs as Finds - I note that this is really an issue with webcams. People do seem to feel that it's "go to coords, take picture". The webcam part apparently is optional. I owned a webcam cache. I was happy to archive it when it went down for while. Felt bad about deleting the no webcam image logs, and felt bad about not deleting them. No fun, either way.

I've noticed that multi-caches also appear to be abused relatively often. If somebody finds stage one but not the final, they often seem to feel entitled to the smiley and will put a log sheet in stage one (if it's a container). If the owner doesn't delete the "Found It" log and replace the (possibly) missing final cache, then future "finders" will follow suit and sign the new log in stage one. The multi becomes a de facto traditional cache.

Share this post


Link to post

We have a cache that involves a 22 km round trip walk on a sand dune. The only available spot is for a micro next to the lighthouse. Our cache cache page says to take a picture if the cache is missing so as not to disappoint anyone who makes the long trek.

 

*****************************

 

We solved a series of 57 puzzle caches that are over 2 hours from our place. Most of the caches are on trails or abandonned roads and require some hiking. Before leaving home we contacted the CO and informed him we were coming and were prepared to do maintenance on any wet or full logs. We also mentioned that if he wished we could replace the few caches that had a number of DNF's (After a good look of course). He agreed that we could do that for him.

 

We spent two busy days grabbbing caches, doing maintenance and replacing a few. Our logs showed our action for each cache and we provided he owner with information for updating his hints. In response, we received a nice email thanking us for saving him a full day of maintenance. We think it was a win win situation.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

×